[Grand Jury] final report

2006 - 2007
San Luis Obispo County
Grand Jury
FINAL REPORT
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
P. O. Box 4910
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Telephone: ( 805) 781- 5188
www. slocourts. net/ grandjury
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
INTRODUCTION
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................ i
INTRODUCTORY LETTER................................................................................. iii
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................... v
AUTHORITIES FOR GRAND JURY INQUIRIES............................................... vii
AUTHORITIES FOR AGENCY RESPONSES .................................................... ix
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
1. DIABLO CANYON: SAN LUIS OBISPO’S KATRINA? .............................. 1- 1
2. YOUR VOTE COUNTS – IT REALLY DOES .............................................. 2- 1
3. SLO PUBLIC DEFENDERS ........................................................................ 3- 1
4. COUNTY CONTRACTS: DO WE GET WHAT WE PAY FOR? .................. 4- 1
5. ELDER AND DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE............................................... 5- 1
6. GETTING TO KNOW LAFCO...................................................................... 6- 1
7. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT ................................ 7- 1
8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY...................... 8- 1
9. HISTORIC PRESERVATION....................................................................... 9- 1
10. CALIFORNIA VALLEY.............................................................................. 10- 1
11. TRIBAL CONSULTATION – A PEACEFUL APPROACH ........................ 11- 1
12. VECTOR CONTROL - AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION ............................. 12- 1
13. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION.... 13- 1
PRISONS, JAILS & LOCAL LOCK- UPS INSPECTION REPORTS
14. REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES IN SLO COUNTY........ 14- 1
15. CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY ................................................................ 15- 1
16. THE EL PASO DE ROBLES YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY ......... 16- 1
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page ii
17. COUNTY JAIL ........................................................................................... 17- 1
18. JUVENILE HALL – JUVENILE SERVICES CENTER............................... 18- 1
19. LOCAL LOCK- UPS................................................................................... 19- 1
REPONSES TO 2005- 2006 GRAND JURY REPORTS
COUNTY HARBORS ....................................................................................... R- 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLEET GARAGE............................................. R- 1
PESTICIDE USE AT THE AGRICULTURAL/ URBAN INTERFACE................ R- 2
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION...................................... R- 3
LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT.............................................. R- 3
AREA ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.................................................. R- 4
BICYCLE RIDING IN SAN LUIS COUNTY...................................................... R- 4
ATASCADERO HIGH SCHSOOL: RACIAL ISSUES...................................... R- 5
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS................................................................................. R- 6
OAK TREE PRESERVATION IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY..................... R- 7
AGING OUT: THE FUTURE OF FOSTER CHILDREN ................................... R- 8
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDITS ................................................... R- 8
RESTRAINING ORDERS: PAPER THIN PROTECTION ................................ R- 9
CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY..................................................................... R- 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL AND HONOR FARM............................. R- 10
JUVENILE HALL/ JUVENILE SERVICES CENTER ...................................... R- 10
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page iii
INTRODUCTORY LETTER
Each year in June, nineteen people are selected by the Superior Court from among citizen
volunteers in San Luis County to serve for a full year as members of the Grand Jury. Members
of the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury were drawn from all areas of the county and had diverse
educational and professional experiences. The resulting mix of ideas and talents, combined with
a high level of dedication and energy allowed this group to produce informative and incisive
reports about the workings of county government.
For the benefit of citizens who may be uninformed about how a grand jury operates and how its
reports are generated, and for those who may have an interest in serving on a future grand jury,
the following explanation is offered.
Citizens of the county who apply for grand jury service are invited to an orientation session for
an overview of the process. They are then interviewed by a judge and, iff approved, their name
is forwarded for inclusion in the annual grand jury lottery. Random selection results in panel
members and alternates.
Only panel members are sworn in and instructed in their charge by the presiding judge. Jurors
take an oath of confidentiality regarding any grand jury matters, not only for their term, but for
the rest of their lives. Grand juries conduct proceedings behind closed doors, as required by law,
primarily for the protection of people who file complaints or who testify during investigations.
Once a grand jury is impaneled, jurors spend six weeks in training with county and court
officials, including the District Attorney, County Counsel, County Auditor, County
Administrator and the Superior Court’s Administrator and Jury Commissioner. Before jurors
begin any investigations, they receive training on the Grand Jury Procedures Handbook and the
Penal Codes which apply to their work. The current handbook and penal codes are on the grand
jury’s website at www. slocourts. net/ grandjury.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page iv
After the training period is completed, jurors begin by reviewing any complaints received that
might be the subject of an inquiry and identifying areas of interest that might become the subject
of self- initiated investigations. A review is done to determine which agencies of local
government have not been looked into by prior grand juries within the past five years. Grand
juries inspect and report on local prison conditions, as mandated by law.
Each grand jury sets its own rules of proceeding and creates committees to investigate and create
reports. The process of generating reports from grand jury investigations has a number of
safeguards built in:
1. A committee first develops an action plan and brings it to the full grand jury for review
and approval. Jurors with a conflict of interest absent themselves from all activities on that
topic and recuse themselves from all voting on the report.
2. Once an investigation is complete, a draft of the report is written by the committee and
reviewed by the full jury. The jury gives input and eventual approval by a vote of at least
12 of its 19 members.
3. The report is then sent to the County Counsel for legal review.
4. The report then goes to the responsible government department for a check on its ‘ factual
accuracy.’ Input is carefully considered, and corrections are made if necessary.
5. The final draft of the report is submitted to the presiding judge of the Superior Court for
review and approval.
6. The report is then released to the media and posted on the grand jury’s website.
It is important to note that while a report’s findings are based on solid facts gathered by the grand
jury’s investigations, the conclusions and recommendations are the result of the panel’s agreed-upon
opinion. Each report is presented to the appropriate department or agency which must
respond within 60 days. No later than 90 days after the release of the report, the governing body
of the public agency must comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings
and recommendations in the report.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page v
Positive changes have resulted from grand jury investigations within San Luis Obispo County.
Some recommendations take time to implement, and some can be adopted immediately:
1. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury questioned the efficacy of the complex land use program,
based on the transfer of development credits. This report has prompted a reevaluation of
the system in the light of present pressures on land use in this county.
2. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury also recommended creating increased protection for oak trees.
The County Planning Department now has strict ordinances to protect oak trees in
unincorporated areas.
Serving as a member of a grand jury is a unique opportunity. It is a challenging and rewarding
experience for those with an interest in how government works and with a willingness to spend
time and energy as part of a team. Participation on the grand jury educates jurors about local
government and in turn, the grand jury reports educate the public at large.
Each grand jury leaves its own unique mark. We, the members of the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury
have worked hard to make our mark by issuing a Final Report which is both a roadmap for
change and a source of thought- provoking information.
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Grand Jury wishes to thank the following:
• Presiding Judge Roger Picquet for his excellent guidance and support during this Grand
Jury’s term.
• Members of our local and regional media outlets for their valuable assistance in
publicizing our reports. Without their interest and support, only a fraction of the public
would be aware of our work.
• Staff members of local government agencies for their cooperation and assistance to the
Grand Jury in carrying out our inquiries. The Grand Jury believes that the county
agencies we reviewed this year are, on the whole, serving the public with efficiency and
dedication.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page vi
• AGP Video of Morro Bay for providing the Grand Jury, free of charge, tapes of the
weekly Board of Supervisors’ meetings.
• Sylvia Martinez, Administrative Assistant to the Grand Jury, for her able and unfailingly
cheerful support of all of us during the past year.
And finally, we thank those members of the public who took the time and trouble to send in their
concerns and complaints to the Grand Jury during the past year. Citizen participation is the
essence of good government.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page vii
AUTHORITIES FOR GRAND JURY INQUIRIES
The authority for our inquiries is sanctioned by one or more of the following sections of the
California Penal Code:
§ 919( b): “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within
the county.”
§ 925: “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the
officers, departments, or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of
any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which
the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts. The
investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year, but the grand jury shall not
duplicate any examination of financial statements which has been performed by or for the board of
supervisors pursuant to Section 25250 of the Government Code; this provision shall not be construed
to limit the power of the grand jury to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records
of the officers, departments, or functions of the county”.
§ 925( a): “ The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or
joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by
this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of
the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such
city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit. The
grand jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all joint powers agencies in the county,
including the abolition or creation of agencies and the equipment for, or the method or system of
performing the duties of, the several agencies. It shall cause a copy of any such report to be
transmitted to the governing body of any affected agency. As used in this section, " joint powers
agency" means an agency described in Section 6506 of the Government Code whose jurisdiction
encompasses all or part of a county.”
§ 928: “ Every grand jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all county officers in the
county, including the abolition or creation of offices and the equipment for, or the method or system
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page viii
of performing the duties of, the several offices. Such investigation and report shall be conducted
selectively each year. The grand jury shall cause a copy of such report to be transmitted to each
member of the board of supervisors of the county.”
§ 933.5: “ A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any special- purpose
assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county or the local agency formation
commission in the county, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter,
may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such district or
commission.”
§ 933.6: “ A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any nonprofit corporation
established by or operated on behalf of a public entity the books and records of which it is authorized
by law to examine, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may
investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such nonprofit
corporation.” ( emphasis added)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page ix
AUTHORITIES FOR AGENCY RESPONSES
The following section of the California Penal Code is cited as the authority under which each
agency must respond to the Superior Court:
§ 933.05 ( a) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the
response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons therefore.
§ 933.05 ( b) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
recommendation, the
responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury
report.
( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
§ 933.05 ( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the
agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand
jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel
matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or
department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her
agency or department.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page x
§ 933.05 ( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for
the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that
person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
§ 933.05 ( e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that
investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or
upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be
detrimental.
§ 933.05 ( f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand
jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after
the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a
public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final
report.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 1
1. DIABLO CANYON: SAN LUIS OBISPO’S KATRINA?
INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the breakdown of the emergency response system in New
Orleans was apparent and appalling to the entire nation over a period of days, weeks and months.
Citizens of every community must have watched and asked themselves, “ Could this happen in
my community?”
Every region has its unique challenges in terms of potential natural and human- caused disasters.
In San Luis Obispo we live in proximity to one of only two nuclear power plants in the State of
California. Although there has never been an alert or a site area emergency in the 22 years that
Diablo Canyon Power Plant has been in operation, the possibility exists. If there were a disaster
at Diablo, would our emergency response system respond effectively?
PURPOSE
The San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services ( OES) has basic responsibility for
providing integrated and effective safety and emergency management services in any natural or
human- caused emergency. Although past Grand Juries have looked at OES before, this study
focuses in particular on emergency planning related to Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. In
the aftermath of the Katrina fiasco, the Grand Jury was particularly interested in looking at
disaster planning in response to possible threats, which might require evacuation or sheltering- in-place.
Our concerns included evacuation routes, interagency communication, communication
with the public, special needs evacuation, sheltering in place, and potassium iodide distribution
methods.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 2
METHOD
As part of its investigation, Grand Jurors:
• Toured Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and listened to presentations by the Vice
President of Nuclear Services and the Manager of Government and Public Relations.
• Toured the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Operations Center and listened to
presentations by the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff and Under Sheriff.
• Interviewed the Deputy County Administrative Officer and one of the long time
Emergency Service Coordinators.
• Interviewed the Pacific Gas & Electric ( PG& E) Emergency Planning Coordinator.
• Interviewed three board members from Mothers for Peace.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 3
• Interviewed both the San Luis Obispo County and the San Luis Obispo City Community
Emergency Response Team ( CERT) program coordinators.
• Conducted an informal telephone survey of 12 local pharmacies regarding availability of
potassium iodide.
• Reviewed the emergency planning information for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
contained in the Customer Guide Section of the 2005 AT& T telephone book.
• Reviewed the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Management Coordination Overview
Document Version 2.
• Reviewed the Federal Department of Homeland Security’s draft report on a 2006 nuclear
power plant emergency response exercise conducted October 25, 2006.
• Reviewed the 2004- 2005 Annual Report of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety
Committee ( DCISC).
• Reviewed the American Red Cross Shelter- in- Place Fact Sheet.
• Reviewed the CERT Student Manual.
• Reviewed the California Office of Emergency Services “ San Simeon Earthquake After
Action Report” November 2, 2004
• Reviewed the websites for the following organizations: the U. S. Department of Health
and Human Services Center for Disease Control ( Emergency Preparedness and
Response); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( Frequently Asked Question About
Potassium Iodide); American Thyroid Association ( Public Health Statement), American
Academy of Pediatrics ( April 2003 News Release on Potassium Iodide).
BACKGROUND
The Office of Emergency Services ( OES) is responsible for developing a plan for responding to
an emergency at Diablo Canyon, and for coordinating the plan with other emergency response
organizations such as parent company Pacific Gas and Electric, the State of California, Federal
Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA). The
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 4
purpose of the OES Emergency Operations Plan is to protect the health and safety of the public
by mobilizing emergency workers, notifying the public, and implementing decisions for
protective action.
Organization
Under the plan organized by OES, emergency personnel, are divided into four primary groups as
follows:
The Command Group includes the County Administrative Officer, the County Sheriff, the
County Fire Chief and the County Health Officer. These key managers direct and coordinate the
county’s emergency response and act as the liaison with cities, state and federal agencies, and
PG& E.
The Operations Group is made up of county, state and non- governmental agencies
coordinating direct response activities in the field. This group includes, for example, police, fire,
emergency medical, public works, school districts and the American Red Cross.
COMMAND
GROUP
OPERATIONS
GROUP
LOGISTICS
GROUP
UNIFIED DOSE
ASSESSMENT
CENTER
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 5
The Logistics Group provides management and specialized skills. It generally consists of the
County Counsel, General Services, Information Services, the County Public Information Officer,
and Emergency Services Coordinators.
The Unified Dose Assessment Center receives radiation measurement data from Diablo
Canyon Power Plant as well as from pre- positioned radiation monitors in place at various
locations in the county. Based on this information, the Command Group makes decisions about
protective actions for emergency workers and the public. The Center is coordinated by the
County Director of Environmental Health and brings together county staff from Environmental
Health, the Agricultural Commission, and the Air Pollution Control District, as well as PG& E
staff and state and federal agencies.
Facility
The County Emergency Operations Center ( EOC), which includes the working spaces for the
Command Group, Operations Group and Logistics Group mentioned above, and the Unified
Dose Assessment Center, is located in a single building near the Sheriff’s office. In addition, the
building houses the Sheriff’s Dispatch Center, the Joint Media Center, and PG& E’s Emergency
Operations Facility. A joint Information Center/ Media Center is located nearby to support the
EOC. This building was funded by the Diablo Canyon Power Plant project as a requirement of
the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission to handle potential emergencies at Diablo
Canyon. However, the EOC also serves as San Luis Obispo County’s core location for any type
of emergency, including major disasters and terrorism; as well as earthquake, fire, flood,
tsunami, hazardous materials, and bomb threats.
Protective Action Recommendations
The basic danger in a nuclear power plant emergency is radiation exposure. The amount of
radiation released, the length of the release, and the prevailing weather patterns determine
exposure. The job of the Command Group is to use all available information to decide on
recommendations to best protect the public and emergency workers. They may recommend
sheltering, or evacuation of specific areas.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 6
Sheltering means staying indoors with doors and windows closed and ventilation systems turned
off. This decreases chances of breathing contaminated air or receiving airborne contamination.
Emergency Service personnel recommend that the shelterer use duct tape and plastic sheeting to
seal doors and windows and have a portable radio for continuing emergency information.
Evacuation would be ordered by Protective Action Zone ( PAZ). These are the twelve areas
described in the AT& T telephone book that surround the power plant. OES considers it
extremely unlikely that a Diablo emergency would ever require an evacuation of all twelve
Protective Action Zones. Hence, it is important for residents to know what their zone number is,
and to have a radio or television tuned to a local station for information.
The Command Group may also recommend, as a supplemental protective measure, the use of
potassium iodide ( KI). While potassium iodide protects the thyroid gland from radioactive
iodine, it does not protect the rest of the body from other contaminants. In 2003 The Federal
Government provided KI to states with nuclear power plants, which, in turn, distributed it to
areas where plants were located. There was a distribution to residents of Diablo Canyon PAZ’s
in the spring of 2003. It is the state’s responsibility to distribute KI to those who wish to take it
within four hours of a radiation emergency.
NARRATIVE
The Grand Jury’s investigation focused on several areas of particular interest. Among these
were the availability of alternative evacuation routes, particularly from Avila Beach; interagency
communication and communication with the public; emergency preparation plans for the
disabled; information about sheltering in place; and potassium iodide distribution.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 7
Evacuation Routes
Because of their proximity, residents of Avila Beach are especially vulnerable in any discussion
of evacuation because there appears to be only one way out. But there is an alternate route,
which has been designated since 1993 and is a part of the Emergency Response Plan. This is
Blue Heron Road from the San Luis Bay Inn and exiting out San Luis Bay Drive through Avila
Bay Estates ( see Appendix A). The plan includes traffic control at the points noted in Appendix
A and notification to the public when these routes are opened. Traffic control means an officer
would be assigned to those points to direct traffic if an evacuation order were given. A second
alternate route through the golf course exists via Harford Canyon Road and Lupine Canyon
Road. The private property owner has been cooperative in assuring that these roads will be
maintained and improved so that their condition is adequate for use as emergency evacuation
routes.
The Cave Landing Road to Bluff Drive leading to Shell Beach is apparently no longer
considered an alternative. An existing dirt road through this private property could be upgraded
to provide an exit route from Avila Beach to Shell Beach. This possibility arose when the county
and land conservationists proposed buying the 120 acre parcel in October 2006.
Communication in an Emergency
The Emergency Operations Center has long had a “ Red Net” phone system, hard- wired to public
safety offices. Using this system, the entire emergency system was mobilized and in place at the
EOC within a half hour following the San Simeon earthquake in December 2003. Interagency
communication can be conducted via land phone lines within the EOC, as well as cell phones
and pagers. The EOC also contains a communications facility set up by the Amateur Radio
Emergency Service/ Radio Amateurs Civil Emergency Services that can provide communication
throughout the county as needed. After Hurricane Katrina knocked out all land lines and cell
towers, Homeland Security provided funding that allowed the EOC to purchase a new satellite
phone system which functions with complete independence from local conditions.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 8
The initial public warning is, of course, the siren system. According to the AT& T telephone
book, the sirens’ message is to go indoors and listen to an Emergency Alert System station on the
radio, or any other radio or television station, which will then inform residents and visitors what
to do. It is assumed that everyone can access and comprehend a radio or TV message, and that
radio, television and electrical systems are functioning.
Special Needs Emergency Planning
In the past, caretakers for people with various disabilities had been critical of county disaster
planning because it did not adequately address the special needs of many members of the
community, such as wheelchair accessibility and auditory limitations issues. Following Katrina,
a private ombudsman and the OES formed a committee to address some of these problems.
Some of their ideas, such as simplified mail- in special needs request cards, have been
implemented. At their suggestion, a workshop was held in June 2006, which included 200
representatives of all licensed facilities for residents with special needs. The emphasis was on
emergency training for people working with vulnerable populations. According to participants
the workshop was extremely valuable. The primary message was, “ You need to be able to take
care of yourselves for 72 hours.”
Sheltering
Sheltering orders for a radioactive release would generally be short term, and the brief directions
provided in the AT& T telephone book reflect this. However, in almost every interview, Grand
Jury members heard emergency planners stress the need for all individuals to be prepared to
provide for themselves for at least 72 hours. The disastrous days after Hurricane Katrina served
to emphasize the importance of self- reliance in an extreme emergency. Additional information
about basic emergency supplies and the benefits of a battery- or self- powered radio would be of
great value to county residents.
Potassium Iodide ( KI) Distribution
The information about potassium iodide provided in the PG& E booklet and the 2005 AT& T
phone directory states that it “ can be taken as a supplemental protective measure,” after specific
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 9
instruction by a public health official. There is then reference to a website for more information.
To access information, the user must go to www. oes. ca. gov; from there he/ she must click on
“ Radiological/ Nuclear” and then locate “ Obtaining Potassium Iodide,” which then simply lists
two commercial websites for Anbex and Thyrosafe. For those who can’t navigate the internet,
the phone book provides an 800 number where “ a recorded KI information line has been
established to answer questions you may have about the program.” That number offers 9
options, none of which are related to potassium iodide. ( One deals with emergency preparedness
kits, but does not mention KI.) 1
The AT& T phone directory also indicates that taking KI is voluntary. This would seem to be the
kind of decision that residents within the Protective Action Zones and Public Education Zones
would need to make in advance. Nothing in the material provided, or in the references given,
provides information that would be helpful in making a decision about KI. The American
Thyroid Association states, “ Highest priority for potassium iodide use should be given to babies,
children up to 18 years of age, and pregnant women.” The U. S. Food and Drug Administration
( FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research states, “ Adults older than 40 have the lowest
chance of developing thyroid cancer or thyroid injury after contamination with radioactive
iodine. They also have a greater chance of having an allergic reaction to KI.” A National
Research Council Board on Radiation Effects Report dated December 2003 states, “ There is little
benefit in providing KI to adults over 40.” On January 12, 2005 the FDA approved a more
palatable KI oral solution for use in children ( See Appendix B). This half- dose oral solution is
not mentioned in any of the materials provided to the public.
The phone book further states that potassium iodide can be purchased in some local pharmacies.
Grand Jury members conducted an informal survey in September 2006 and randomly called 12
pharmacies in San Luis Obispo, Pismo Beach, Los Osos and Arroyo Grande. Eleven pharmacies
stated that they did not stock KI. Two said they could order the liquid form only, but would
require a prescription.
1 The 2006 Phone Book has a new number which connects to the State of California OES.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 10
CONCLUSIONS
San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services is widely recognized as one of the best in
the State of California as well as the western region.
In a State of California “ After Action Report” following the San Simeon earthquake, a FEMA
staff member was quoted as saying, “ The response to the San Simeon Earthquake by local,
county, state, federal and volunteer agencies at all five SEMS ( Standardized Emergency
Management System) response levels was a textbook example of how a large, complex, multi-jurisdiction
emergency can be managed in an efficient effective manner.” In June 2003, the
State of California awarded a commendation to the county for exemplary performance during
Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Preparedness exercises.
The U. S. Department of Homeland Security conducts a Radiological Emergency Preparedness
Program exercise in this county biennially. The most recent drill occurred on October 25 and 26,
2006. Twenty- one participating agencies were evaluated in 32 areas. In these areas all criteria
were met and there were no deficiencies assessed.
On November 15, 2006 the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency presented its fourth annual
regional Emergency Preparedness Leadership Award to San Luis Obispo County. The region
represented included Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal
Nations. The award was in recognition of unified leadership in developing a joint nuclear power
plant emergency response plan, which is unique to most areas of the United States.
In summary, the OES has developed a unified emergency response plan that requires all local
and locally based agencies to work together effectively and cohesively. Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant has provided the funding for the County Emergency Operations Center, for much of
the equipment in the Center, for three of the four Emergency Services Coordinators, for the EOC
Red Net phone system which connects directly to all seven cities in the county as well as Cal
Poly, and for much of the extensive training and sophisticated emergency drills which go far
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 11
beyond the level of most county emergency service offices. Finally, the relatively sparse
population of the county gives us an advantage in dealing with an emergency that might require
evacuation. Could there be another Katrina in San Luis Obispo County? Clearly the answer is
no. That said, there are several areas where current procedures should be reviewed.
FINDINGS
1. Because of their proximity, residents of Avila Beach are understandably most concerned
about limited emergency evacuation routes. . The county has been successful in working
cooperatively with the private property owner of the Avila Beach Resort and Golf
Course. For residents on the south side of Avila Beach, the Cave Landing to Bluff Drive
route, originally considered as a possible exit, seems like an obvious alternative. The
existing dirt road should be upgraded and designated as another alternative evacuation
route from Avila Beach.
2. Emergency responders repeatedly stress the need for all residents to be self- sufficient for
at least 72 hours. As one Emergency Services Coordinator put it, “ Planning starts at the
individual level and moves out from there.” However there is limited information about
what people need to do to prepare to be self- sufficient.
3. The very successful meeting on emergency planning for people with special needs was
specifically for providers in licensed county facilities. It did not include special needs
residents who are living on their own with family or professional assistance.
4. Liquid potassium iodide especially prepared for infants and children, the most vulnerable
population to radiation, is not readily available. The information in the AT& T telephone
book about potassium iodide is insufficient and outdated. Currently the State of
California does not stock liquid KI.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 12
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Office of Emergency Services should work with private owners San Miguelito
Partners to explore the addition of Cave Landing to Bluff Drive as an alternative
emergency exit from Avila Beach. ( Finding 1)
2. Information about self- sufficiency, how to prepare a 72 hour emergency kit, and how to
obtain potassium iodide as an individual should be developed and mailed directly to
county households annually. As part of this mailing, information about CERT
( Community Emergency Response Team) should also be included. This could be
included in the annual Disabled Registration card mailer or sent as a separate mailer to all
county residents. ( Finding 2)
3. Using the Disabled Registration cards, OES should organize meetings with independent
special needs residents and their caretakers to discuss emergency response and self-sufficiency.
( Finding 3)
4. An information sheet about potassium iodide should be prepared for distribution to
county obstetricians and pediatricians. OES should review all information in the AT& T
telephone book headed “ Nuclear Emergency Information” for currency, accuracy and
clarity. Particular attention should be paid to the section on potassium iodide. ( Finding
4)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 13
REQUIRED RESPONSES
1. San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services: Due ( All Findings and
Recommendations)
2. San Luis Obispo County Health Officer: Due ( Findings and Recommendations 3 & 4)
3. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors: Due ( All Findings and
Recommendations)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 14
Appendix A
Avila Beach Emergency Evacuation Routes
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 15
Appendix B
NRC Approval of Liquid Potassium Iodide
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 16
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 1
2. YOUR VOTE COUNTS – IT REALLY DOES
Hanging chads, faulty or rigged voting machines, suspect totals from voting machines in Ohio
and a herd of confused voters in Florida are what many people remember from the 2000 and
2004 elections. What about San Luis Obispo County? Did anything like that happen here?
Could it happen here? How free from suspicion or corruption are the election results in San Luis
Obispo County?
ORIGIN
The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the use of electronic voting machines asking that
it investigate the vulnerabilities of the County’s present voting system, which, the complainant
alleged, included machines that were “ hackable.” The complainant also alleged faulty software
protocol, and that memory cards contained within electronic machines could be programmed to
determine election outcomes, and cited information regarding San Luis Obispo County’s 2002
primary election posted at www. blackbox. org. That site alleged that on Election Day, 2002,
Diebold machines “ phoned home” at 3: 31 PM and reported vote totals from the precinct.
METHOD
Early Posting of Absentee Ballot Results
The Grand Jury’s investigation began by focusing on an allegation of early posting of absentee
ballot results in the 2002 election.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 2
It is important to state here that the Grand Jury found no evidence to
support the charges and believes them to be baseless rumors.
1. Some web sites dealt with this story as an exposé, while others reported it as if it were
actual news.
2. Charges were made that some results of absentee ballots had been posted on the Diebold
website at 3: 31 PM on Election Day, 2002. CBS reported it as true.
3. The Grand Jury interviewed the County Clerk- Recorder and the Assistant County Clerk-
Recorder regarding this reported incident, which, if true, could have changed the outcome
of that election.
Election of November, 2006
1. On November 4, 2006, three days prior to the election, members of the Grand Jury visited
the Clerk- Recorder’s office to observe the routines for handling, processing and counting
absentee ballots. While there, they reviewed data security procedures and general office
security procedures.
2. On Monday, November 6, 2006, the day before Election Day, members of the Grand Jury
returned to the Clerk- Recorder’s office to observe the final preparation activities for
Election Day and to again review security procedures.
3. On Tuesday, November 7, 2006, Election Day, members of the Grand Jury fanned out
across the County going to randomly selected polling locations to observe the opening of
the polls. They inspected ballot boxes to be sure they were empty and checked the
optical scanners to be sure digital counters had been set to zero. They watched as the first
ballot was scanned to be sure the digital counter then read “ 1.” In addition they observed
the poll workers, the facility, and the early flow of voters through the polling place.
4. Throughout the day’s activities, members of the Grand Jury monitored selected polling
locations. They observed the physical conditions of polling places, staffing levels, and
the flow of voters through the facility.
5. Polling locations were also inspected at the end of the day as well as through the closing
of the polls. This included the end- of- balloting routine used on the optical scanners, the
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 3
tally by the inspectors, the packing of ballots and supplies, and the transfer of these
materials by the polling location’s precinct inspector to either a regional staging area or
directly to the Clerk- Recorder’s office.
6. In some locations, the balloting results were transferred by modem to the Clerk-
Recorder’s office, while at others the results were transferred electronically when the
optical scanner arrived at the office of the Clerk- Recorder.
7. Members of the Grand Jury arrived at the Clerk- Recorder’s office at approximately 7: 30
PM on Election Day to observe tabulating and publishing of balloting results, as well as
the receiving and processing of ballots and supplies as they were brought to the site.
8. While there, members of the Grand Jury observed procedures followed by poll inspectors
as they arrived to return poll materials to the outside reception team waiting at the curb in
front of the Clerk- Recorder’s office. They also observed the outside reception team as
they checked the materials being returned and then processed those items. They stayed
until after the last truck from the regional centers arrived and was unloaded, finally
leaving at approximately 11: 00 PM.
9. Subsequent to the certification of the election results, on November 28th, members of the
Grand Jury requested additional information from the County Clerk- Recorder. The
requested information was provided promptly.
NARRATIVE
Both the 2000 and 2004 elections cast a pall over the entire election process leaving many
Americans wondering if their votes were counted at all and, if they were, were they counted
correctly? With evidence of wrong- doing at the highest levels, media reports of hacking, and a
myriad of problems with non- paper balloting, many of us need reassurance that our vote will be
counted as it was cast.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 4
Misinformation on the Web
While stories about San Luis Obispo’s 2002 results being posted on the Internet hours before the
polls closed were widespread, we found those allegations not to be true. We also found that no
news organization contacted the Clerk- Recorder to verify or disprove the story.
The Grand Jury found that what had actually occurred was:
a) At the 2002 primary election, a data backup was made on Election Day to ensure that the
new system was operating as expected and in case of a crash, to secure the data.
b) A Diebold representative offered to store that backup on Diebold’s servers and the Clerk-
Recorder agreed. This was the third election in which the system had been used, and the
first in which touch- screen machines were used for early voting in the office and was a
reasonable and prudent decision by the Clerk- Recorder. After that election, the data stayed
on Diebold’s FTP servers ( isolated, secure units used for this purpose.) While that may have
been an oversight, it was after the fact and the data was of no use to anyone since the results
had been made public and precinct by precinct breakdowns of the results were widely
available.
c) It was that data, then 18 months old, that was discovered on the Diebold FTP site. No
current data had been hacked.
d) No one contacted the Clerk- Recorder to ask about what had happened or to verify the
story.
Current Security and Backup protocols
Shortly before the election, the Clerk- Recorder programs the memory cards used in its optical
scanners, inserts them into the scanner, and places appropriate seals over them. The County uses
Diebold’s AccuVote optical scanners to count votes at the polling locations, as well as a similar
device in the Clerk- Recorder’s office to count absentee ballots.
The server used in San Luis Obispo County elections is housed in a lockable metal cabinet. Only
the County Clerk- Recorder and Assistant County Clerk- Recorder have keys to that cabinet. For
added security, a camera is focused on it. Prior to the election, the only connection to the server
is from the optical scanners in the office used to transmit the data from absentee ballots as they
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 5
are run. There are no connections to modems, cable modems, T- 1 lines or the like for output or
input from external sources.
A system that is not connected to any such device cannot be accessed remotely by hackers.
Just as you cannot make or receive telephone calls if you’ve unplugged your telephone from the
wall, a computer cannot receive or transmit data if it is not connected. The server is not
connected to its modem until a few minutes after 8: 00 PM on Election Day, when the polls are
closed.
CONCLUSIONS
Voters in San Luis Obispo County’s 2006 election can be assured that after casting their ballots,
whether in person or absentee, not only were their votes counted, and counted correctly, but that
their vote counted. No chads, no stolen votes, no miscounted votes, no lost votes, no rigged
voting machines or suspect totals. Not here in San Luis Obispo County.
The Clerk- Recorder repeatedly reviewed the routines and protocols to be sure that Election Day
ran smoothly. The planning and logistics were finely tuned with continual checks in place to be
sure that all ballots received were counted as the voter intended. As in past years, experienced
part- time workers came back to help the regular staff with the extra work during election time.
FINDINGS
1. The pre- election procedures for ensuring that optical scanners accurately counted our
votes were followed to the letter. The back- up routines employed by the Clerk-
Recorder’s office to ensure against any loss of voting data meet the highest standards.
The computer security policies in place precluded the possibility of hacking into, altering,
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 6
or modifying any data in the system. Please see Appendix A for a detailed description of
that process.
2. On Election night, several AccuVote scanners were returned to the reception area with
damaged seals. Please see Appendix B for a list of those anomalies prepared by the
Clerk- Recorder’s office.
3. The procedures used for securing, processing, counting, and verifying San Luis Obispo
County’s absentee ballots were followed explicitly. Please see Appendix C for a detailed
description of that process.
4. The procedures employed at the polling places on Election Day for securing ballots,
ensuring that eligible voters were guaranteed their right to vote, relaying or transporting
ballots or results, and safeguarding the equipment were very effective as well. Please see
Appendix D for a detailed description of that process.
5. The procedures for gathering, processing, verifying and publishing the results of balloting
on Election Day worked to perfection. The staff at the County Clerk- Recorder’s office
made it looks simple as well. Please see Appendix E for a detailed description of that
process.
6. The quality control procedures used for safeguarding and storing ballots and other critical
items after the election have been designed to offer both security of these items and an
audit trail should any questions arise within 22 months of the election. Please see
Appendix F for a description of that process.
7. The rumor regarding posting of balloting information was proven to be false.
8. The November, 2006, countywide election cost the taxpayers about $ 570,000.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 7
APPENDICES
Appendix A Security and Backup Procedures
Appendix B November 7, 2006 Seal Anomalies
Appendix C Absentee Ballot Processing
Appendix D Election Day Balloting and Processing
Appendix E Activities at the County Clerk- Recorder’s Office
Appendix F Gathering election materials at the end of the day.
Appendix G Samples of Checklists Used by the Clerk- Recorder:
1. Processing AV Ballot Applications ( AV = Absentee
Voter)
2. Absentee Ballot Stuffing Instructions
3. Absentee Processing Instructions Checking Incoming
Envelopes
4. Processing Returned Absentee Ballots
5. Supply Box Contents
6. Ballot Statement
7. Canvass Manual
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 8
APPENDIX A
Security and Backup Procedures
• Shortly before the election, appropriate data for the upcoming election is programmed into
the memory cards and inserted into the AccuVote systems. A seal is then applied to the
scanner.
• There are four seals, one red plastic and three blue adhesives that are placed on each
AccuVote scanner after the memory card is inserted and set for the election.
• The first, the red plastic seal, is placed through the hole to lock the bar securing the memory
card slot. The number of the red plastic seal is recorded on a memory card seal log which is
kept with the AccuVote.
• The poll- workers are instructed to ensure this red seal is in place upon arrival in the morning.
The Precinct Assistants sign off that this seal is in place. If the precinct assistant has to
change a machine out on Election Day, they will place a new red seal on the machine and
record the new number on the log. This seal must be intact when it arrives at the collection
center and/ or main office.
• If the machine’s modem has failed, the memory card is removed at the collection center so
the results can be transmitted from another machine.
• If this seal is not intact on election morning, a new memory card is programmed and both the
AccuVote and memory card are replaced.
• Adhesive blue seals are placed in the following locations:
o Across the metal bar, that secures the memory card slot.
o Over the screw on the right side of the AccuVote case.
o Over the modem connection on the back of the machine.
• When a blue adhesive seal is removed, the word VOID will appear on the seal.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 9
o These seals were added in response to a concern that someone with access to the
AccuVote could remove all the screws in the case, open the case and remove the memory
card without breaking the red seal.
o In addition, the seal across the modem connection protects poll- workers from
allegations that they allowed access to machines through a modem prior to election night.
• On their first visit of the morning, the precinct assistant verifies that all three blue seals and
the red seal are in place.
• The machine is kept in the locked ballot box until it is removed after the polls close. Then the
data is either transmitted directly from the polling place or it is returned to the collection
center/ main office where the data is transferred.
• The blue seal over the modem connection would be removed in those instances when the
results are transmitted from the polling place.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 10
APPENDIX B
November 7, 2006 Seal Anomalies
The following anomalies occurred on November 7, 2006:
• Vote Center 15- A seal was intact at the collection center, but broken in transit to the
SLO office.
• Vote Center 20- A seal was broken by Clerk’s staff at collection center.
• Vote Center 21- A seal was broken by Clerk’s staff at collection center.
• Vote Center 46- A seal was broken by Clerk’s staff at collection center.
At one of the vote centers in South County, the precinct inspector removed the seal covering the
modem while searching for the on/ off button. When the precinct assistant arrived, the other poll-workers
attested that the seal was intact when the machine arrived at the polling place.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 11
APPENDIX C
Absentee Ballot Processing
• There were approximately 68,000 absentee ballots mailed out to the 155,495 registered
voters in this county for the November, 2006, General Election.
• By the Saturday prior to the election, approximately 39,000 of those ballots had been
returned and counted. By the time the election was certified, over 55,000 absentee ballots
were returned and counted.
• Counting absentee ballots is a very labor intensive and precise process with each of the
approximately 55,000 ballots being handled several times.
• Most absentee ballots arrive at the Clerk/ Recorder’s office by mail. Others are dropped off at
the office by voters in the days preceding Election Day.
• On Election Day a designated team is stationed at the curb in front of the office to accept
ballots from voters who simply wish to drive up and drop off their ballots without getting out
of their cars. Some voters like to park and walk inside to personally deliver their ballots,
while others are dropped off at polling locations on Election Day.
• Upon arrival at the Clerk- Recorder’s office, the envelopes are inspected:
o For damage.
o To see if there is a check- mark in the box indicating the envelope contains a
damaged ballot.
o For a signature.
• Envelopes with any anomalies are set aside for further processing.
• Those that pass inspection are placed into trays and sent on to the next station for signature
verification.
• The County’s voter database not only has each voter’s name and address, but has a matching
scanned signature as well.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 12
• The pre- printed name and address on each ballot envelope is the information used to access
each voter’s record, and then the signature on the envelope is compared against the scanned
signature on file.
o If the signatures match, it is placed into a batch to be passed to the next station.
o If the signatures do not match, the envelope is set aside for further review and
special processing.
• From there the ballots are sent to the next station where they are batched into groups of 50
and then sent through a large envelope opener where they are slit.
o The slit envelopes with ballots inside are again counted into groups of 50 and sent
to the next station.
• At this point, the envelopes are opened, ballots removed, envelopes counted, ballots counted
and envelopes placed into a cardboard box, again in batches of 50.
• Each batch of 50 ballots is taken by an election worker, unfolded, and stacked face up. Each
of these ballots is inspected:
o For physical damage.
o To be sure the voter has not used a red pen or marked the ballot in a way that the
machine cannot read.
o To be sure that only the proper number of votes per ballot item has been cast ( i. e.
only one for Governor).
o For write- in votes, which must be hand tallied.
o If an anomaly is spotted, that ballot is set aside for further review to see if the
voter’s intention can be determined so it can be corrected or duplicated.
• The ballots, still in batches of 50 are then moved to the optical scanners.
o As staff feed them through the optical scanners, the votes are counted.
o If the scanner senses a problem, it stops, displays an error message and the staff
member determines the problem.
o Sometimes the ballot simply needs to be re- fed through the scanner and
occasionally the ballot markings may need to be clarified.
o In addition, the machines stop if a write- in ballot is detected so staff can check to
see if the write- in vote is valid and should be hand tallied.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 13
• There are typically four scanners in use, and all are connected to a server located a few feet
away.
• The server is in a lockable steel cabinet. It is not connected to a modem, T- 1 line, or any
other such device that would enable transmission of data to any location. The server is not
connected to the county’s local area network.
• The ballots are counted in groups of 50 to ensure that every ballot is counted and is counted
only once, but the batch is not committed until 200 ballots have been counted.
• Once the ballots are counted they are placed into a box with an identifying batch slip. The
box is sealed, labeled, and signed by either the County Clerk- Recorder or Assistant County
Clerk- Recorder.
o These boxes are stored for 22 months in accordance with the county’s retention
policy.
• The number of ballots that are moved through the system is logged to account for every
ballot. For instance, the processing board logs the number of ballots removed from the secure
room and the number of ballots that are returned ready for counting.
o They also log those ballots that need to be duplicated or that must have write- in
votes, hand tallied.
o In addition, the counting board logs the ballots it removes for counting, the
number counted and those that are returned to the secure room for duplication.
o Each of these logs is balanced at the end of the day and any anomalies are
investigated and resolved.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 14
APPENDIX D
Election Day Balloting and Processing
1. Election Day Polling locations typically house several precincts, each with its own set up,
tables and poll- workers. Signs make it easy for voters to locate their precincts. Upon
arriving at polling locations, voters go to their designated precinct area, identify
themselves, sign the registration list and are handed a ballot and privacy cover. Voters
then step into a voting booth where they mark their ballots, place them into a secrecy
sleeve and carry it to the optical scanner located within each polling place. Voters feed
their ballots into the optical scanner, which retains them, and hands the secrecy sleeve to
the poll- worker stationed there.
2. AutoMark Voter Assist Terminals, the special devices used by handicapped voters to
mark their ballots, are at each polling location. The AutoMark only marks the ballots;
they do not record votes. These ballots are returned to the desk where they are placed in
individual envelopes to be hand carried to the County Clerk- Recorder’s office where
they are tabulated.
3. Voters at the polling locations whose record indicates they had been sent an absentee
ballot are provided with provisional ballots. These ballots are placed into pink envelopes
to be carried to the County Clerk- Recorder’s office where they are tabulated once the
voters’ status can be verified.
4. Voters who arrive at the polling locations and face some other anomaly are also given a
provisional ballot. These ballots are also placed into pink envelopes to be carried to the
County Clerk- Recorder’s office for verification and tabulation.
5. While the polls close at 8: 00 PM, any voter already in line is permitted to vote. At some
polling locations, a poll worker walks out and stands at the end of the line as a “ marker”,
while at other locations the last eligible voter in line is asked to be the end of line
marker.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 15
6. After the last eligible voter has voted, the polling location inspector inserts the “ end of
vote” card into the optical scanner to conclude the day’s balloting. The digital readout
which indicates the number of votes cast is noted and compared with the handwritten
tally. The ballots are removed from the ballot box, and sent to the County elections
office in a sealed box.
7. If a telephone line is available at the polling location, the optical scanner is connected to
it and the balloting results are transmitted to the office of the Clerk- Recorder. If no
telephone line is available or there is some other problem with transmitting the data, the
poll inspector will relay that fact to the reception teams at the Clerk- Recorder’s office so
that the results can be transmitted upon arrival at the Clerk- Recorder’s office.
8. Poll inspectors then complete their paperwork and load all supplies, ballots and
equipment into their cars. Depending upon the poll’s location they either drive directly
to the office of the Clerk- Recorder in downtown San Luis Obispo to turn everything in,
or they go to one of several regional staging areas where a crew and truck is waiting to
gather the equipment from that area.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 16
APPENDIX E
Activities at the County Clerk- Recorder’s Office
1. By 8: 00 PM the reception teams have set up a table curb- side in front of the Clerk-
Recorder’s office. At this election, the first poll inspector pulled up at about 8: 40 PM
with a fairly steady trickle following. A little before 10: 00 PM the first truck from a
regional center pulled in and by 10: 30 all ballots, equipment and supplies had reached
the Clerk Recorder’s office.
2. As the poll inspectors arrived the reception teams removed the ballots, supplies, and
equipment from their cars and placed them on the table. The poll inspector walked to the
table, handed a packet to a member of the team and stated out loud, to identify it as
either “ Modemed” or “ Not Modemed.” The team member receiving the packet repeated
this statement aloud, so that the poll inspector could hear and confirm it, and so that the
team member who would carry the AccuVote scanner into the office would hear it as
well. They in turn would repeat it to a staffer inside whose job it was to separate and
track those AccuVote scanners whose data had been transmitted and those that had not.
Once there, the AccuVote scanners with data that had not been transmitted were
separated and taken to the secured area where their data is retrieved and fed into the
server.
3. The early results are typically those of the absentee voters with the transmitted results
being added as available.
4. State law requires that each county transmit some results to the Secretary of State’s office
by 9: 00 PM. Thereafter, results are transmitted every two hours.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 17
APPENDIX F
Gathering of Election Materials at the End of the Day
The following items are returned to the County Elections Office on Election Night:
• Envelope # 1
o Receipt for precinct supplies
o Voted ballots sealed in containers
o Voted absentee ballots and provisional ballots sealed in blue bags
• Envelope # 2
o Non- processed ballots ( voted but not counted on Election Day)
o Voter registration cards
o Provisional roster
o Provisional ballot statement
• Envelope # 3
o Voted write- in ballots
• Envelope # 4
o Roster
o Outside indexes
o Payroll sheet
o Yellow copy of ballot statement
o Inventory sheet from supply box contents list
o AccuVote totals tape ( for those precincts who have an AccuVote assigned)
• AccuVote unit
The following items are left at the polling place for pick up by the delivery crews on the day
after the election:
• Sealed in Envelope # 5
o Spoiled, unused, and unwrapped ballots
o Stubs from issued AccuVote ballots
o Surrendered ( spoiled or not voted) absentee ballots
• Supply tub
• Ballot box
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 18
APPENDIX G
Samples of Checklists Used by the Clerk- Recorder
1. Processing Absentee Voter ( AV) Ballot Applications
2. Absentee Ballot Stuffing Instructions
3. Absentee Processing Instructions Checking Incoming Envelopes
4. Processing Returned Absentee Ballots
5. Supply Box Contents
6. Ballot Statement
7. Canvass Manual
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 19
1. PROCESSING AV BALLOT APPLICATIONS
SORTING
1. Sort applications into two stacks:
SLO county sample ballot application
Other applications
2. For each type of application, sort by permanent absentee status box into two stacks:
Requesting pav status ( checkmark or initial)
Not requesting pav status
Once applications are sorted into stacks as above, perform the following checks on all stacks
1. Duplicates on sample ballot applications . The phrase Ayou are a permanent absentee
voter” or “ you vote by mail@ will be printed in place of the polling place.
a. Check these dups for different mailing addresses - place in separate stack
b. All other dups, place in duplicate box- NOTE: this only applies during the week
of E- 29 to E- 22. After that a duplicate letter is sent to the voter.
2. PO boxes or Mailing address ( M on sample ballot applications) - put these in a separate
stack to verify residence addresses.
3. Other address for mailing ballot ( not residence or mailing address as registered- separate
stack
4. Check signature - make sure signature is same as printed name ( sometimes a husband or
wife signs the wrong form)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 20
5. When the above checks are completed, you will have 4 stacks of ballots to be processed
which can be placed in the corresponding trays:
pav applications to be wanda’d
pav applications to be manually entered
reg applications to be wanda’d
reg applications to be manually entered.
6. You will also have the following stacks for additional processing
PO Boxes or mailing addresses- verify in DIMS that the residence address on
the application is the same as the registration address.
If no- place in CHANGE box.
If yes- mark ok and place in appropriate tray for processing as above.
Duplicates with different mailing address- place in box for reissuance of ballot
with lost ballot statement
Other Address for mailing ballot- place in box for OTHER ADDRESS
Signature Different- Cross off voter’s name and write in name of voter who
signed application. Place in applications to be manually entered.
ENTERING APPLICATIONS
WANDA APPLICATIONS
1. For all applications to be wanda’d, recheck for 1- 4 above and that the residence address
on the application matches printed residence address.
2. Prepare Wanda according to instructions. As each application is scanned, ensure that
the barcode read is the same as on the application. This is very important.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 21
3. Upload the applications to DIMS, per instructions. PAV applications are uploaded first
as Regular applications and then reuploaded as adding permanent status only. Regular
applications are just uploaded once as Regular.
4. Rubber band applications of each type together. Write the date processed on the first
application and place in the appropriate processed application box.
MANUALLY ENTERED APPLICATIONS
1. Enter the absentee ballot request in Dims per instructions
2. Make sure to check that the information on the application matches the registration
information. If it does not, process according to # 6 above.
3. If the application is a duplicate application and the ballot was issued within the last week,
write DUP on the application and place in DUP box.
4. If the application is a duplicate and the ballot was issued more than a week ago, place in
the DUP to be reissued and sent lost ballot box.
5. Once all applications are entered into system, rubber band the PAV apps together and
place in the box labeled PAVs to be processed after Election.
Rubberband the regular applications together and place in Processed Application box.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 22
2. ABSENTEE BALLOT STUFFING INSTRUCTIONS
Ensure all envelopes and ballots in batch are the same:
** precinct**
** ballot type**
** party** ( primary election only)
Count envelopes and ballots to see that they match ( same amount).
Look for Out of Country Addresses
Stuff envelopes with ballots, instructions, and I. D. return envelope
Before putting in mail tray - make sure addresses show through
envelope window
Keep flaps up
First Class envelopes ( ballots going outside San Luis Obispo County)
have to be kept separate from others.
Approximately 250 stuffed ballots fit into a mail trail
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 23
3. ABSENTEE PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS -
CHECKING INCOMING ENVELOPES
A. Check envelopes
1. Check every envelope for a mark in the spoiled box. Take out and set
aside for reissuance .
2. Check every envelope to ensure that it has been signed.
a. If the signature is missing, set it aside to mail out again.
b. If the ballot is signed by someone other than the voter to whom it is
issued or the signature is printed, place in AProblem Signature@
box.
3. Place all envelopes that have been checked upside down in a small mail
tray. Lavender envelopes are placed in a separate tray.
B. Scan Envelopes- It is important that the envelopes are kept in the same order
as they are scanned. When the signatures are being checked, the voter
registration information will appear in the same order as the envelope was
scanned.
1. Scan bar codes on envelopes using the Wanda hand held scanner.
2. Ensure that the bar code that is read by the scanner is the correct bar
code
3. If any bar code cannot be read by the scanner, enter the number by hand.
4. Place scanned envelope tray with Wanda unit on top of it on the cart by
the door.
C. Uploading Scanned Envelopes
1. Connect Wanda to computer with cable.
2. In Dims, select Miscellaneous, Wanda, Wanda Upload
3. Check the Returned AV Ballots and enter the return source ( usually mail)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 24
4. Click on the OK button in DIMS. Instruct the Wanda unit to upload the
report.
5. Once the upload is completed, a report will be generated in DIMS.
a. Print the report and clip it to the front of the tray of signatures.
b. Place the tray of signatures in order on the shelves of the roll down
unit.
c. It is important that the trays are checked in the order that they are
uploaded
6. Delete the file on the wanda unit so it is ready to scan the next batch of
signatures.
D. Check Signatures- see instructions for verification of signatures
PROCESSING OF BALLOTS TO BE RESENT TO VOTERS
A Spoiled Ballots
1. In Dims, suspend the spoiled ballot and reissue a new ballot. Print
labels.
2. Affix labels to new envelopes. Mark in red on bottom left side of the
envelope 2nd ISSUE ( or 3rd issue, if appropriate)
3. Pull ballots and stuff outgoing envelope with instructions.
4. Stamp outgoing envelope in RED with OPEN IMMEDIATELY, RE-PLACEMENT
BALLOT IS ENCLOSED stamp.
5. On spoiled ballot envelope write: Reissued and Date.
6. Place spoiled ballots in Spoiled Ballot Box
B I. D. Envelopes Requiring Signatures
1. Enter challenge code: Return to Voter- no signature in the absentee
module.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 25
2. Highlight signature space
3. Place ID envelope in outgoing envelope.
4. Stamp outgoing envelope in RED with OPEN IMMEDIATELY, ABSENTEE
BALLOT IS BEING RETURNED FOR SIGNATURE ON I. D. ENVELOPE
stamp.
PROCESSING OF BALLOTS WITH PROBLEM SIGNATURES
A If the ballot has been signed by someone other than the voter
1. Verify that the person who signed the ballot has requested an absentee
ballot. Often, spouses or parents/ children will sign the wrong ballot.
2. If the person who signed has been issued a ballot, attempt to contact the
voters by phone. Inform them that the other voter should vote and sign
the other ballot. Instruct them to cross off the name of the voter on the
envelope.
3.. Make a note on the envelope and place back in the problem signature
box.
4. If you cannot contact the person, make a note and place back in the
problem signature box. Sometimes the voter will contact us themselves
or the signature on the other envelope will be rejected also and the
envelopes can be matched up and verified.
5. If the person who signed the envelope has not requested an absentee
ballot, process above as though there is no signature.
B. If the signature on the envelope is printed.
1. Verify that the voter registration signature is not printed. If it is printed
and it matches the signature on the ballot, verify manually in DIMS
2. If the voter registration signature not printed, return ballot with letter
instructing the voter that they must SIGN the ballot using their normal
signature.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 26
3. Follow procedure above for no signature on ballot.
C. If signed by a someone other than the voter as a power of attorney
1. Attempt to contact the voter and explain that the voter must make a mark
which can be witnessed by another person but the POA is not acceptable.
2. If the voter cannot be contacted, return the ballot with a letter explaining
the witness procedure.
3. Follow procedure for no signature on the ballot.
4. PROCESSING RETURNED ABSENTEE BALLOTS
Verifying Signatures: See instructions for handling errors also
1. Select first envelope in tray and find absentee voter in DIMS ( yellow
envelope on tool bar).
2. Remove envelopes four at a time to work with
3. Click on View Batch to View 4 Signatures per Screen
4. Verify Signatures and Addresses.
a. The residence address that the voter wrote must match the
residence address on the screen.
b. If residence and signature are correct make a red check mark to
the right of the signature.
5. When you get to end of batch, click OK and then cancel.
6. A report will display that indicates how many challenged ballots you have.
Verify that the number is correct ( should only be Signature Problem
ballots)
a. If the number on the report indicates less challenged ballots than
you have, verify that all the challenged ballots were given a
challenge code.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 27
b. If the number on the report indicates more challenged ballots than
you have, the batch must be reviewed to find the challenged ballot
so it is not opened.
7. With the signatures facing you, mark the tops and left sides of envelopes
with a pink highlighter. Mark batch report as validated, initial it and place it
on top of the envelopes. If there are problems, contact a Supervisor.
ERRORS WHEN CHECKING SIGNATURES AND WHAT TO DO WITH THEM.
The report that is attached to each batch will list errors that you will encounter as you
process the tray of ballots. You will also encounter other errors ( such as a missed
envelope, residence address wrong and signature problems) that are not identified on
the report. Below you will find the solution to each of the errors you may encounter.
When a ballot needs to be challenged, complete the proper code as you work through
the batch. For the other corrections, it will work out best to do all of your corrections at
the end of the batch. Until you are familiar with the system, work with a supervisor to
correct the problems. All corrections must be done before putting the tray away and
signing off on the report.
ERRORS FOUND ON THE REPORT
NO MVF- This indicates that the AVID number that was read by the bar code scanner is
not a valid #. You will most likely have an envelope in this place in the batch that has
not been scanned and there will be a blank record on the screen.
ACTION: Set envelope aside to hand verify at the end of the batch.
If you do not have an envelope without a matching record, it means that the error was
caught when scanning and the envelope was rescanned. No action required if this
happens.
PREVIOUSLY CHALLENGED OR SUSPENDED- This indicates that the ballot that
was scanned was suspended and a second ballot was issued to the voter.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 28
ACTION: Write on the ballot SUSPENDED and set aside to place in the box for
Suspended ballots to be checked later. We will wait until after the election to ensure
that the 2nd ballot was not returned before processing.
DUPLICATE FROM WAND- This means that the ballot was scanned twice. No action
required.
DUPLICATE FROM AV ELECTION TABLE- This means that the voter already had
their envelope scanned and uploaded.
ACTION: Write DUPE? On the envelope and set aside for a supervisor to research.
ERRORS NOT FOUND ON THE REPORT
THE NAME IN THE BATCH DOES NOT MATCH THE NAME ON THE ENVELOPE:
Most likely, the bar code was misread when it was scanned, but instead of it being an
invalid #, the number read matches another voter.
ACTION: Write the name, AVID# of the voter on the screen, and “ scanned no
envelope” on the AV return report so that voter’s record can be corrected. Place the
mis- scanned envelope into the stack to be hand verified at the end of the batch.
THE RESIDENCE ADDRESS DOES NOT MATCH-ACTION:
Verify and red mark the signature. Write Res ? on the envelope flap and
place in the Residence Address box. DO NOT challenge the ballot.
THE SIGNATURE DOES NOT MATCH-ACTION:
Insert the “ Signature Miscompares” code in the challenge field. Write SIG?
on the envelope flap and place in the Problem Signature box.
A SIGNATURE DOES NOT EXIST IN DIMS FOR THE VOTER
ACTION: Insert the “ No Signature” code in the challenge field. Write NO SIG on the
envelope flap and place in the Problem Signature box.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 29
SIGNATURE IN NEW NAME: VOTER HAS CHANGED NAME BUT NOT RE-REGISTERED
ACTIONS: Insert “ Signature Miscompares” code in the challenge field. Write Sig? on
the envelope flap and place in the Problem Signature box.
SIGNATURE IS PRINTED AND DOES NOT MATCH
ACTION: Insert the “ Printed Signature” code in the challenge field. Write PRINTED
SIG on the envelope flap and give to a supervisor so the ballot can be returned to the
voter.
ANOTHER PERSON HAS SIGNED THE BALLOT
ACTION: Insert the “ Signature Miscompares” code in the challenge field. Write SIG?
on the envelope flap and give to a Supervisor for research.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 30
5. Supply Box Contents
Loose in Tub:
Warehouse Pct. Inspector
Check Check
□ □ Magnifying Glass Sheet
□ □ Ruler
□ □ “ I Voted” Stickers
□ □ Voter Registration Forms ( Approx. 20)
□ □ Plastic “ Vote Here” Signs with Wire Frames
□ □ Black or Canvas Ballot Bag
□ □ AccuVote Ballots
□ □ AutoMARK Ballots and Ballot Statement ( Only in Accuvote Inspector’s tub)
□ □ Roster Index
□ □ 2 Inside- Outside Indexes
□ □ Bag # 1 and instruction sheet
□ □ Provisional Ballots
□ □ Provisional Roster
□ □ Provisional Envelopes
□ □ Provisional Ballot Statement
□ □ Provisional Voter Manual
□ □ Provisional Voter Information ( pink pad)
□ □ Envelope # 2
□ □ Envelope # 3
□ □ Envelope # 4
□ □ Envelope # 5
□ □ Green Absentee Envelopes with Instructions
□ □ Street Guide
□ □ American Flag
□ □ Plastic Bag with Voting Pens with String and Clothes Pins to Clip to Booths
□ □ Secrecy Sleeves for all ballots ( we had to improvise for the 18” long ballot)
□ □ Plastic Bag with Stationery Supplies
□ □ Precinct Worker Training CD
□ □ Precinct Worker Badges
□ □ Precinct Worker Pins
□ □ Unofficial Results Sign for Second Copy of AccuVote Tape
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 31
Manila Envelope:
Warehouse Pct. Inspector
Check Check
□ □ Outside Index Tally System
□ □ “ Challenged Voter Procedure” Poster
□ □ “ Vote Here” Signs
□ □ “ Polling Place” Signs
□ □ “ 100 Feet” Signs
□ □ “ Please State Name and Address” sign
□ □ 2 Voter Rights Posters to Be Posted Inside and Outside the Poll Location
□ □ Voting Instructions - Post One in Each Booth
□ □ Tampering is a Felony sign
□ □ Voter Information Guides ( state pamphlet) & Sample Ballot Booklets ( local
information)
□ □ Demonstration Ballots
□ □ Ballot Statement - Certificate of Packaging & Sealing
□ □ Tamper Proof Seals for Containers of Voted Ballots
□ □ Tamper Proof Seals for Envelope # 5
□ □ Postage Paid Return Envelope for White Copy of Ballot Statement
□ □ Receipt for Precinct Supplies ( Take to Return Center)
□ □ Payroll
□ □ Precinct Workers OR Inspectors’ Manual
□ □ Election Officer Digest
□ □ Job Description Sheets
□ □ Poll Watcher Information
□ □ Emergency Procedures
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 32
6. BALLOT STATEMENT
PUT yellow copy in Envelope # 4
MAIL white
copy in envelope
FOR THE CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 7, 2006
( remember to leave more space for labels for pct number)
CON ______ POLL BALLOT STATEMENT
( Elections Code § 14405; 14421; 15271; 15275)
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF POLL BALLOTS RECEIVED FROM THE BALLOT QUANTITIES WORKSHEET
LINE 1 ________
2. TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTERS WHO SIGNED ROSTER ( INCLUDING INACTIVE) LINE 2 ________
3. NUMBER OF VOTED BALLOTS:
a. NUMBER OF VOTED BALLOTS ON THE
ACCU- VOTE TAPE FOR YOUR PRECINCT LINE 3a __________
b. NUMBER OF NON- PROCESSED BALLOTS
NOT FED THROUGH THE AccuVote ( IF ANY)
( Ballots have been voted; machine
would not accept them) LINE 3b __________
c. NUMBER OF AUTOMARK BALLOTS ( IF ANY) LINE 3c __________
TOTAL OF LINE 3a, 3b, AND 3c TOTAL LINE 3 ________
4. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NUMBER ON LINE 2
( signatures on roster) AND ON LINE 3 ( voted ballots), IF ANY LINE 4 ________
5. NUMBER OF SPOILED BALLOTS
( Ballots issued to a voter but returned spoiled) LINE 5 ________
6. NUMBER OF UNUSED POLL BALLOTS - SEE BALLOT QUANTITY WORKSHEET LINE 6 _________
Reasons for differences, if any, between lines 2 and 3, as entered on Line 4.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 33
WE THE UNDERSIGNED PRECINCT BOARD MEMBERS, HEREBY CERTIFY
that the above accounting of official ballots is true and correct
CERTIFICATE OF PACKAGING AND SEALING
We further certify that the following containers were sealed ( if necessary) in our presence, and
that we have enclosed in the containers their respective appropriate listed contents.
Take the following items to the Regional Central Collection Center.
BAG # 1 VOTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS and VOTED PROVISIONAL BALLOTS
( if any)
Canvas Bag Containing:
ENVELOPE # 2 SEE ENVELOPE FOR LIST OF CONTENTS
ENVELOPE # 3 WRITE- IN BALLOTS ( if any)
ENVELOPE # 4 SEE ENVELOPE FOR LIST OF CONTENTS
CONTAINER FOR Voted ballots from AccuVote unit
VOTED BALLOTS ( INDICATE NUMBER OF BOXES RETURNED ON SEAL)
Leave the following items at the polling place.
ENVELOPE # 5 SEE ENVELOPE FOR LIST OF CONTENTS
Date: Time:
Inspector Clerk
Clerk Clerk
Clerk Clerk
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 34
7. CANVASS MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. General Information 2- 35
II. Starting the Canvass 2- 36
III. Verification of Returned Items 2- 38
IV. Roster Reconciliation 2- 39
V. Ballot Processing 2- 41
VI. 1% Manual Hand Tally 2- 43
VII. Audit Reports 2- 44
VIII. Certificates 2- 44
IX. Statement of Vote 2- 44
X. Destruction of Unused Ballots 2- 45
XI. Completion of Election 2- 45
XII. Appendix- Forms 2- 46
Ballot Count Log # 2
Envelope # 3 Log
Envelope # 4 Log
Roster Balance Sheet
Roster Checklist- Primary Election
Roster Checklist- General Election
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 35
I. GENERAL INFORMATION:
The Official Canvass shall commence no later than the Thursday following the election
and shall be open to the public. The canvass shall be continued daily, Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays excepted, for not less than six hours each day until completed.
( EC' 15301)
The official canvass shall include, but not be limited to, the following tasks ( EC' 15302):
An inspection of materials and supplies returned by the poll workers.
A reconciliation of the number of signatures on the roster with the number of ballots
recorded on the ballot statement.
In the event of a discrepancy in the reconciliation, the number of ballots received from
each polling place shall be reconciled with the number of ballots cast, as indicated on
the ballot statement.
A reconciliation of the number of ballots counted, spoiled, canceled or invalidated due to
identifying marks, overvotes, or as otherwise provided by statute, with the number of
votes recorded, including absentee and provisional ballots, by the vote counting system.
Processing and counting any valid absentee and provisional ballots not included in the
semifinal- official canvass.
Counting any valid write- in votes.
Duplicating and counting any damaged ballots, if necessary.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 36
A manual tally of votes cast in one percent of the precincts and for each race not
included in the initial group of precincts, the counting of one additional precinct. The
hand count shall apply only to the race not previously counted.
9. Reporting final results to the governing board and the Secretary of State, as
required.
II. STARTING THE CANVASS:
In order to keep the canvass moving in a smooth progression, tasks will be done in the
following order:
E+ 1
1 team ( 2 employees) will begin working on envelopes and preparing rosters
1 team ( 2 employees) complete election night processing of absentee and provisional
ballots
1 team ( 2-? Employees) will scan and check signatures on absentee ballots
E+ 2
All employees will open and process absentee ballots in preparation for counting
E+ 3
Employees as needed on opening and processing
1 team ( 2- 5 Employees) begin scanning roster signatures
E+ 6- E+ 14-
1 team ( 2- 4 employees) balance rosters
1 team ( 2- 4 employees) process provisionals ( after all rosters scanned)
1 team ( 1- 2 employees) finish absentees that need additional processing ( check voting
history, re check signatures, etc.)
1 team ( 2- 4 employees) count ballots as necessary
1 team ( 1- 4 employees) review write in ballots and manual tally valid write- in votes as
required.
E+ 13- E+ 16
Teams as needed - Manual Tally of precincts and absentees
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 37
Supplies Needed:
1. Canvass Packet
a. Ballot Count Log # 2 - Non- Processed Ballots
b. Envelope # 3 Log- Write- Ins
c. Envelope # 4 Log- Rosters, etc.
i. Provisional Ballot Log for Inspector Evaluations
d. Red Pens
e. Seals for ballot containers
f. Rubber Bands
g. Tally Sheets for Write- In= s
h. Boxes for VRCs, Rosters, Accuvote tapes, write in ballots, non-processed
ballots
i. Tubs for envelopes and miscellaneous items.
j. Roster Labels
2. Absentee Ballots turned in at the polls and Provisional Ballots ( already in
trays from election night).
3. Envelope # 2 - Non- Processed Ballots, VRC= s
4. Envelope # 3 - Write- Ins
5. Envelope # 4- Roster, Outside Indexes, Payroll, AccuVote Tape ( if
applicable), Yellow copy of Ballot Statement, Supply List
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 38
III. VERIFICATION OF RETURNED ITEMS
If any of the items required to be returned are missing, notify a supervisor immediately
so they can be tracked down.
Envelope # 4
Remove the Roster, Accuvote Tape ( if AccuVote was assigned to that precinct),
Outside Indexes, Ballot Statement and Payroll and check them off on the Envelope # 4
Log. Put any miscellaneous items with Payroll sheet.
1. Affix label to front cover ( not binder of roster) and put Rosters in Boxes in
Con Precinct order - one box for 100' s, one for 200' s, etc.
2. Put Payroll Sheets in Con Precinct order and give to Pam. If Envelope # 4
included items not called for, paper clip them to the payroll sheets.
3. Put the yellow copy of the Ballot Statements in Con Precinct Order.
4. Fold the Accuvote Tapes so the Vote Center shows and place them in
Vote Center # order.
5. Put Outside Indexes into boxes.
Envelope # 2:
1. Enter the number of Non- Processed Ballots ( these ballots were not
counted election night) as noted on the envelope on the Ballot Count Log
# 2 under APoll Count@.
2. Count the number of Non- Processed Ballots - enter total on Ballot Count
Log # 2 under AOffice Count@.
3. Remove VRC= s, if any, and place in VRC box.
4. Place ballots in con # order in box.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 39
Envelope # 3:
1. Enter the number of Write- In Ballots as noted on Envelope # 3 under
AWrite- In Poll Count@ on the Envelope # 3 Log.
2. Open Envelope # 3 - count the number of Write- In Ballots - enter the total
on the Envelope # 3 Log under AWrite- In Office Count@.
3. Rubber band or paper clip the Write- In Ballots from each Con Precinct and
put in tub in precinct order. ( These ballots were counted election night -
write- in votes, if valid, must be hand tallied)
IV. ROSTER RECONCILIATION
Roster Preparation:
1. Using the poll ballot statements, complete the Roster balance spreadsheet
in Excel- just the columns that pertain to the Poll Ballot Statement.
( total issued, # voted, # Automarks, # non- processed, # spoiled and #
unused.)
2. Wanda scan each signature on each page ( including Inactives). Keep a
close eye on the scanner display to ensure that the barcode scanned is
the number on the display. If the number does not match the barcode, let
a supervisor know so it can be corrected.
3. For the primary election, prior to scanning signatures, use a highlighter to
identify the DS voters that have voted. These voters will have to be
scanned separately according to their cross- over party voting, if
applicable.
4. Upload to DIMS. Print Wanda Report.
5. Note on the Roster label that the signatures have been scanned.
6. Place poll ballot statement and wanda report in the inside pocket of the
roster binder.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 40
Roster Balancing:
1. You will need the following for balancing the roster: 1 blank roster
balance sheet; Poll Ballot statement; Wanda Report; Election Summary
Report and Accuvote tape.
2. Complete roster balance sheet according to instructions.
3. If roster balances,
a. mark precinct # off master balancing list
b. staple roster balance sheet, poll ballot statement, wanda report and
summary report together ( in that order) and place in “ balanced” box
c. Note on roster label that it is balanced.
d. Place roster back in roster box.
4. If roster does not balance
a. Leave all materials together and place in not balanced stack.
5. Follow instructions for roster reconciliation for all rosters that do not
balance on 1st try.
6. Any rosters that cannot be balanced by 2nd try must be reviewed and
signed off by County Clerk- Recorder or Assistant County Clerk- Recorder
Ballot Statement Reconciliation:
1. Complete Roster Balance spreadsheet – columns for accuvote report, #
counted nonprocessed and # of signatures.
2. Print spreadsheet and store with poll ballot statements.
Roster Checklist - Check the roster for the following and complete checklist:
1. The Declaration on the inside front cover has been signed by each
precinct worker and witnessed.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 41
2. The AccuVote Tape has been signed at the opening and at the closing of
the polls.
3. Absentees have been hand marked in the roster for those voters on the
Late Absentee List. Mark a red check & your initials on the list to show
this has been done.
4. Certificate AA@ on the inside back cover has been completed and signed
by each precinct worker.
5. Ballot Statement is completed correctly and signed by each precinct
worker.
6. Voter Tally matches the number of signatures in the roster including
provisional and inactive voters.
7.
V. BALLOT PROCESSING
Provisional Ballots:
1. All rosters must have signature scanning completed prior to beginning this
process.
2. Process all envelopes from one precinct together.
3. Once processed,
a. rubber band ballots to be counted together and place in COUNT
tray.
b. Rubber band rejected ballot together and place in DON’T COUNT
tray.
4. Complete Inspector Evaluations
5. Envelopes that are marked Don= t Count will be double checked by
someone other than the person who made the original determination.
6. Once provisional ballot process is completed, the ballots will be opened by
the Opening Board. Provisional ballots are counted on central count
units into the poll ballot buckets.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 42
Write Ins:
1. Check the number of write- in= s for qualified write ins turned in election
night in Envelope # 3 against the Summary Report from election night to
make sure the precinct put all the write- in ballots into Envelope # 3. If there
is a difference check to see if ballots with write- in votes are with the voted
ballots from that precinct. If all write in ballots cannot be found notify a
supervisor.
2. Check the write in ballots from the absentee processing board to
determine if there are any valid votes for qualified write in candidates.
These ballots have not yet been counted.
3. If there are qualified write- in= s from the absentee ballots and/ or the
precinct ballots the Write- In Ballot Board will be set up.
4. Poll ballots can be put back in the box of voted ballots for that precinct.
5. Absentee ballots should be batched and logged to go to the Counting
Board.
Non- Processed:
1. These ballots will be counted only if after balancing we find that we need
them to balance the roster, because you can= t be 100% sure they
haven= t already been counted at the polls.
2. If it is determined that they should be counted, note on non- processed log
and set aside for duplication/ enhancement board.
Duplicating/ Enhancing:
1. Three people to a board.
2. Use the Ballot Duplication Packet which contains:
a. Instructions
b. Pens - Red Pen, Blue & Black Markers
c. Duplicate and Void Stamps
d. Correction Tape
e. Envelopes/ Boxes for Void Ballots
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 43
f. Ballot Duplication/ Enhancement Log
g. Certificate of Ballot Duplication/ Enhancement Board
h. Blue Highlighter
3. Follow the Ballot Duplication Board Instructions.
VI. 1% MANUAL HAND TALLY
Poll Ballots:
1. Every race in one percent of the precincts ( 2 precincts) , chosen at
random by the elections official, shall be hand counted.
2. In addition to the one percent count, for each race not included in the
initial two precincts, count one additional precinct. This shall only apply to
races not previously counted.
3. The additional precincts may be chosen at the discretion of the elections
official.
4. Follow the procedures for the manual tally.
Central Count:
1. Determine by random which batches will be hand tallied. ( 1% of the total
absentee ballots counted- usually 3 absentee batches and 2 mail ballot
precinct batches)
2. Make backup of database and delete all batches except those to be hand
tallied.
3. Prepare a database for each batch and delete all but that one batch.
4. Print summary reports for each batch of ballot.
5. Follow procedures for manual tally
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 44
VII. AUDIT REPORTS
1. Print Audit Log from Gems
2. Print Audit Reports from every memory card.
3. Review for any potential discrepancies.
4. Retain Audit logs and reports with other certification materials.
VIII. CERTIFICATES:
1. Results of Canvass of All Votes Cast
a. Send certificate and copy of Statement of Vote pages to other counties
with shared districts.
2. Results of Canvass for each entity with a measure or candidate race.
a. Send certificate and copy of Statement of Vote pages to each entity.
3. Destruction of Unused Ballots
a. Attach to list of unused ballots and put in main file.
4. Enter Write- In Results in Gems
5. Certificates for elected and appointed in- lieu candidates.
6. Letter to Board of Supervisors to Declare Results.
7. Letter to Board of Supervisors to Make Appointments In- Lieu of Election.
8. Send Statement of Vote and Supplemental Statement of Vote to SOS.
IX. STATEMENT OF VOTE:
1. Print Statement of Vote for All Ballots, Poll Ballots and Absentee Ballots after all
ballots have been counted, rosters balanced, hand count is finished and write ins
have been entered.
2. Number each page at the bottom right corner with numbering stamp.
3. Include the following in the Statement of Vote for All Ballots:
a. Table of Contents
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 45
b. Certificate of County Clerk - Results of Canvass of All Votes Cast
c. Certificate of County Clerk - Results of Write- In Votes Cast
d. Certificates to the Result of the Canvass for each entity with a contest on
the ballot.
e. Official Final Summary Report.
f. Consolidated Precinct List.
g. Statement of Vote or summary report from other counties with shared
districts.
h. Send Statement of Vote to Reprographics for copying and binding
X. DESTRUCTION OF UNUSED BALLOTS:
1. Make a list of ballot numbers for each ballot type and party, if applicable, for all
absentee and mail ballots not used.
2. Seal ballots in boxes labeled.
XI. COMPLETION OF ELECTION:
1. Precinct Officer Evaluations ( not required by law)
2. Verification of signatures scanned against roster to ensure correct voter history.
3. Prepare packet of information for files.
a. Sample Ballots
b. State Pamphlet and Addendum ( if applicable)
c. Easy Reader Voter Guide
d. Candidate/ Media/ Precinct Worker Booklets
e. Final Precinct Summary
f. Candidate List & Successful Candidate List
g. List of contests and ballot type cross reference
4. Package up materials to go to camp.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 46
BALLOT COUNT LOG # 2
ENVELOPE
NUMBER 2 - NON PROCESSED
DETERMINATION
COMMENTS
CON
PRECINCT
PCT
COUNT
OFFICE
COUNT
COUNT
NO
COUNT
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 47
ENVELOPE # 3 LOG
CON
WRITE- IN
POLL
COUNT
WRITE- IN
OFFICE
COUNT
WRITE INS
VERIFIED?
CHECK FOR
WRITE INS
ALL WRITE- INS
ACCOUNTED
FOR
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 48
ENVELOPE # 4 LOG
CON PCT
ROSTER
INDEX
ACCU -
VOTE TAPE
OUTSIDE
INDEXES
BALLOT
STMT
SUPPLY
LIST
PAYROLL -
LIST OTHER
ITEMS
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 49
ROSTER BALANCE SHEET
CONSOLIDATED PRECINCT #
BALANCED: INITIALS
COUNT BALLOTS IN BOX? RECOUNT BALLOTS?
Step 1: Determine # of voters who were issued ballots
# of signatures from Wanda report
Adjustments: Write Voter’s name and adjustment ( ie. Remove or
add)
Total # of voters issued ballots
Step 2: Determine # of ballots issued/ voted
# of ballots from precinct summary report
# of non- processed ballots determined to be valid to count (+)
Adjustments:
Total # of ballots issued/ voted
Comments:
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 50
ROSTER CHECKLIST - PRIMARY ELECTION
CON
PCT
INSIDE
FRONT
COVER
SIGNED
BY ALL
INSIDE
FRONT
COVER SIGS
WITNESSED
ACCUVOTE
TAPE SIGNED
AT BEGINNING
AND END
A= S
MARKED
LATE
REG= S
ADDED TO
ROSTER
PARTY
INDICATED
ON NON-DECLARED
= S
TALLY #= S
MATCH # OF
SIGNATURES
INACTIVE
VOTERS
SIGNED
ROSTER
INSIDE BACK
COVER
CERTIFICATE
AA@ SIGNED
BY ALL
BALLOT
STATEMENT
COMPLETED
CORRECTLY
ROSTER
BALANCES
COMMENTS
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 51
ROSTER CHECKLIST - GENERAL ELECTION
CON PCT
INSIDE
FRONT
COVER
SIGNED
INSIDE FRONT
COVER SIGS
WITNESSED
A= S
MARKED
LATE REG
PAGE ADDED
TO ROSTER
TALLY #= S
MATCH # OF
SIGNATURES
INACTIVE
VOTERS SIGNED
ROSTER & GIVEN
TALLY NUMBER
INSIDE BACK
COVER
CERTIFICATE
AA@ SIGNED
BALLOT
STATEMENT
COMPLETED
CORRECTLY
ROSTER
BALANCES
COMMENTS
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 1
3. SLO PUBLIC DEFENDERS
INTRODUCTION
The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury investigated a complaint lodged against the county’s public
defenders. The complainant believed she had not been well served by her public defenders. Assigned
a series of different attorneys to represent her, she believed an agreed- upon arrangement worked out by
one of those attorneys, with concurrence of the judge and district attorney, was not honored when a
subsequent attorney took over the case.
San Luis Obispo County does not have a public defenders’ office. The county has a contract with the
law offices of Maguire & Ashbaugh ( the firm) for this service. This contract is described in more
detail below.
METHOD
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed two attorneys, both sub- contracting public defenders who
worked on the complainant’s case. One interview was in person and the other was conducted by
conference call. In addition, a partner in the firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh made a presentation to
members of the Grand Jury and answered questions related to the complainant’s case. It should be
noted that the complainant had previously waived her right to attorney- client privilege. Members of
the Grand Jury interviewed the presiding Judge regarding his opinions of the performance of public
defenders in San Luis Obispo County and, finally, members of the Grand Jury examined the Minute
Order ( defined below) relating to the complainant’s case, and determined the final outcome of her
sentencing by contacting the Sheriff’s office.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 2
NARRATIVE
In large counties, such as Los Angeles, the public defender is an elected official and the county
maintains an office of the public defender that employs its own attorneys. In smaller counties,
including San Luis Obispo, the county contracts for public defender services. The contract in our
county is a flat rate three- year contract that has been held by the firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh since
1980. The current contract is for approximately eight million dollars for the three years ending June
30, 2007. The contract requires the firm to provide attorneys for each criminal courtroom in San Luis
Obispo County every working day. The contract further states that they cannot take on any additional
criminal cases other than public defender work. It also requires the firm to provide the County with
monthly statistics accounting for the number of hours spent working on assigned cases and the number
of their appearances in court. Last year the firm handled approximately 8,500 cases, mostly
misdemeanors, as part of their contract obligation. In addition to adult criminal court, the firm is
required to represent defendants in juvenile court, the mentally ill, and certain conservatorship cases.
The firm sub- contracts part of its work to eighteen other attorneys and hires four investigators, three
paralegals, and clerical staff to assist the attorneys.
In San Luis Obispo the courts have adopted a direct calendar system, which means a case is directed to
one judge and remains with that judge throughout the process. Also, the courts, misdemeanor and
felony, are divided alphabetically further ensuring that defendants see the same judge, public defender,
and district attorney throughout the process. Hence, repeat offenders tend to see the same parties.
Defendants do, however, have a legal right to change judges one time only. The public defenders
normally see a case from beginning to end. The exception is when a case originates in North or South
County and the defendant wants a trial. All trials are held in San Luis Obispo. In these cases one
public defender begins the case and then transfers it to another public defender in San Luis Obispo. In
rare exceptions, cases may be handled by more than one public defender because of illness, job
turnover, or other such circumstances. Most of the attorneys working under sub- contract for Maguire
& Ashbaugh have done so for many years. Last year, however, an opening occurred and was filled by
a succession of new attorneys, two of whom stayed only a short time before transferring to positions in
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 3
other counties. Therefore, this complainant in this matter was represented by four different public
defenders.
Her case originated in North County and was transferred to San Luis Obispo; she was subsequently
represented by both of the new sub- contract public defenders who stayed only a short while. It appears
hers was an unusual situation for San Luis Obispo County. While it is often the norm in larger
counties, where cases are tracked using a master calendar system, and different attorneys represent
defendants for different purposes ( e. g., arraignment, trial, sentencing), it is unusual in this county for
defendants to be assigned a succession of public defenders.
When we interviewed the sub- contracting attorney who represented the complainant during sentencing,
he showed us her file but was unclear about the meaning of some of the notations made on the file’s
jacket by one of the previous attorneys. When we inquired about the agreement reached by the
previous attorney with the judge and district attorney, he also appeared unclear about the previous
agreement and began looking for the Minute Order, which he was unable to find. He then indicated
that the Minute Order was not in the complainant’s file. He said that he was also a bit unsure why it
was not included, but assured us that its absence was not a serious issue because the attorney could
always go to the court and obtain another copy. We subsequently obtained a copy of this Minute
Order from the court. A Minute Order is the courtroom clerk’s written minutes of court proceedings.
Usually a copy is made available immediately to both the district attorney and the public defender
working on the case.
During our interview with the firm’s partner, the Grand Jury inquired about training of new sub-contracting
attorneys. He informed us that new attorneys work with more experienced public
defenders for a month to obtain on- the- job training. He also emphasized that the firm “ strongly
encourages attorneys to take and keep notes in their files.” When attorneys apply to become
subcontractors with the firm they are expected to meet certain standards, for example: law school
graduation and California State Bar membership. When they are interviewed, their past experiences as
attorneys are determining factors in whether or not they are accepted as subcontractors. He also told us
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 4
that, typically, when a case is transferred from one attorney to another, there is communication
between the two.
In further discussion with the firm’s partner along with the presiding Judge, the Grand Jury learned
that the complainant may have misunderstood the nature of the original agreement among the public
defender, judge, and district attorney. State law and the nature of her case left the judge with very
little discretion; therefore, the complainant’s interpretation would not have been legally feasible.
FINDINGS
1. Based upon the Grand Jury’s interviews with two sub- contracting public defenders, a partner
from the firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh, and the presiding judge, we believe the county’s public
defender contract with the law firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh is serving the needs of San Luis
Obispo County well.
2. The use of multiple public defenders in the complainant’s case appears to be an aberration, not
a pattern. The bulk of the defendant’s complaint appears to be based on a misunderstanding,
compounded by a succession of public defenders handling her case.
3. Training of new sub- contracting public defenders needs strengthening, especially with regard to
expectations/ requirements concerning taking and filing good notes and the placement of
Minute Orders in files.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. New sub- contracting public defenders should be given training that incorporates an operations
manual or check- list that includes required notes for each case. ( Finding 3).
2. Minute Orders should be maintained in files. ( Finding 3).
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 5
REQUIRED RESPONSES
1. San Luis Obispo County Public Defenders ( The law firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh) ( Finding 3
and Recommendations 1 and 2).
2. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 1
4. COUNTY CONTRACTS: DO WE GET WHAT WE PAY FOR?
INTRODUCTION
San Luis Obispo County departments issue hundreds of contracts every year. These contracts vary
considerably in value and complexity and are issued for a variety of purposes. While the purposes of
individual contracts may differ, their basic intent is to ensure a clearly documented process detailing
how funds are dispersed as well as services or goods that are received by the County.
To ensure that citizens can be confident that County funds are properly managed, it is especially
critical that County’s staff oversee and document each step of the contracting process.
ORIGIN / PURPOSE
The Grand Jury received several citizen complaints that in some aspects involved County contracts.
While the contracts themselves may not have been the primary issue raised by the complainants, the
review of these complaints required a thorough evaluation of the related contract documents. As part
of this evaluation, the Grand Jury identified several common procedural questions relating to how
these contracts were managed after they were executed. The Grand Jury decided that it would be
appropriate to initiate a separate investigation to review the County’s procedures for post- award
contract management. The goal of this investigation was to determine whether the County has
adequate procedures in place to ensure that potential problems causing contract mismanagement do not
occur.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 2
METHOD
As part of its investigation, Grand Jurors did the following:
• Reviewed contract documents relating to complaints received by the Grand Jury.
• Interviewed one of the contractors.
• Interviewed departments that initiate the majority of County contracts.
• Interviewed the County Auditor- Controller and Administration staff.
• Reviewed contract management reference materials supplied by County departments.
BACKGROUND
As mentioned in the introduction, San Luis Obispo County departments issue hundreds of contracts
every year for a variety of purposes:
• Construction of County infrastructure.
• Procuring supplies and materials.
• Rental or lease of County property or facilities.
• Obtaining professional services ( consulting, service outsourcing, etc.).
Though the purpose of these contracts may differ, the basic steps involved with their creation,
execution and post- award management are similar:
• Develop a clear description of the contract’s purpose.
• Write contract provisions that detail the requirements necessary to accomplish the purpose, and
develop an estimate of the contract’s total costs/ revenues.
• Ensure that all contract provisions are legal and binding ( review by County Counsel or use of
standardized provisions).
• Advertise contract to ensure that all qualified parties have an equal chance to compete.
• Provide an objective evaluation process to identify the most qualified contractor and ensure that
total costs/ revenues are within acceptable limits of the original estimate.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 3
• Award and execute the contract.
• Monitor contract progress to ensure that milestones, deliverables and other contract provisions
are accomplished as required.
As can be seen from the above list, a good deal of the work in managing contracts takes place prior to
award and execution. Most scrutiny of contracts typically involves either the development of contract
documents or the evaluation and selection of potential contractors. Usually what happens after a
contract is awarded does not come to the public’s attention unless there is a major error by the
contractor or a substantial increase to the overall cost of the contract. Although hundreds of contracts
that are issued and completed without incident, what guarantees do the public have that all contract
provisions are actually met?
NARRATIVE
The first step in this investigation was to look at the County’s standard procedures relating to post-award
contract management. Through interviews with the County Administrative and Auditor-
Controller staff, the Grand Jury learned that there are no formal County- Wide procedures in place for
contract management. The Grand Jury was told that each department is responsible for managing
those contracts for which it has lead responsibility. As a result, it is up to each department to
determine how contracts are monitored after award.
The Grand Jury then interviewed managers from two County departments that annually issue a large
number of contracts. Neither of those departments has a set of published standard operating
procedures that address how contracts should be monitored once they are issued. This did not present
a problem for large construction contracts which inherently have a more formalized procedure. These
contracts also have assigned project managers who monitor the phases of construction and are
responsible to ensure that their contracts are on- time and within budget. However, this level of
detailed oversight is not provided for the large number of smaller contracts.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 4
In order to monitor these smaller contracts, the Grand Jury found that several managers have their own
tracking tools. As an example, one department manager developed a database in Microsoft Access to
track contract parameters and another manager in the same department created a Microsoft Word
document that is used as a “ tickler” file ( a collection of notes and dates used as a reminder that follow-up
actions are required in the future).
While these ad hoc tracking systems may currently provide individual managers with the data they
need, they are not designed as high- reliability systems and lack comprehensive documentation. Should
key managers suddenly leave, staff that would have to assume their duties may not be aware of
systems used by their predecessors, or they may not know how to access or operate them. This
potential loss of tracking information could result in inadequate monitoring of contracts or a lack of
consistency in the way they are managed.
That each department is responsible for issuing and monitoring its own contracts creates another
potential for inadequate contact management. Departments like General Services and Public Works
issue a large number of contracts while other sections of the County, such as the Auditor- Controller’s
Office, issue contracts infrequently. A department that is more familiar with contract administration is
less likely to make errors in managing various stages of a contract and is more likely to proactively
identify when a contractor is having problems meeting their contractual obligations.
The Grand Jury did not find that the County has any procedure for the regular review of contacts once
their termination dates have been reached. A “ post mortem” review of this type would appear to have
several advantages, including:
• Verifying that all contract provisions had been met.
• Verifying that all contract milestones had been completed on time.
• Determining whether any follow- up with the contactor was required.
• Evaluating the effectiveness of the contact management procedures used, and determining
whether any changes should be made to the adopted best practices.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 5
CONCLUSIONS
In general, the Grand Jury found that current County staff is dedicated to ensuring that the citizens of
San Luis Obispo County get what they pay for. However, it appears that current, existing standards
and procedures, particularly for post- award contract management, may become inadequate as the
County continues to grow, and more employees become involved in the administration of increasingly
complex County contracts.
FINDINGS
1. There appears to be a lack of formal, published standard operating procedures for contract
administration. An employee faced with a question relating to a particular aspect of managing
contracts may have to seek out other employees who have some familiarity with the problem.
2. Managers in major contracting departments are dedicated and are doing a good job of ensuring
that contractors are meeting their obligations. However, tools they currently in use to track
contracts are not standardized and may not be sufficiently reliable to meet County’s long- term
needs.
3. Not all sections of County staff have the same familiarity and expertise in managing contracts.
This could cause inconsistency in contract management throughout the County. In addition,
expertise and best practices developed within certain County departments are not shared with
other departments.
4. The Grand Jury did not identify any standard procedures for review of contracts after their
terms had ended. A review of this type would verify whether all provisions were met, if any
action against the contractor is required, and whether any changes need to made to contract
management standard procedures.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. All County departments that issue contracts should develop standard contract management
operating procedures. These procedures should cover all aspects of contract management and
clearly define tasks and responsibilities for each step in the contracting process. ( Finding # 1)
2. Any automated tracking systems used for contract management should be created using robust,
high- reliability database programming standards. Systems should be fully documented and
data should be protected from loss or corruption. ( Finding # 2)
3. County offices that do not issue contracts on a regular basis should work through other
departments that are more familiar with contract management procedures sharing established
best practices. ( Finding # 3)
4. When any contract term ends, the issuing office should review the contract to evaluate its
effectiveness. ( Finding # 4)
REQUIRED RESPONSES
1. San Luis Obispo County Administrator. ( all recommendations)
2. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. ( all recommendations)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 5- 1
5. ELDER AND DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE
INTRODUCTION
As a large number of the general population of the County of San Luis Obispo ages, many elderly and
dependent adults can become vulnerable to various forms of abuse and neglect. An elder is defined as
any person 65 years of age or older. A dependent adult is any person between the ages of 18 and 64
who has physical or mental limitations that restrict their ability to engage in normal activity or to
protect their rights as citizens. They may have physical, mental or developmental disabilities or these
abilities have diminished with age. It also includes any person between the ages of 18 and 64 who has
been admitted to a 24 hour care facility because they are unable to care for themselves or have been
determined to pose a danger to themselves or others.
To effectively serve the needs of this group, a task force was organized by the District Attorney’s
Office along with various countywide agencies to coordinate elder assistance programs of government
and community service care providers.
PURPOSE
This Grand Jury report is meant to shine a light into the dim and shadowy lives of aged people who
suffer from dementia and live a confused and fearful existence. In 2006, The Task Force on Crimes
Against Elderly and Dependent Adults published “ Response to Incidents Involving Elderly &
Dependent Adults, A Protocol for First Responders and Support Agencies,” in San Luis Obispo
County. This document details how to recognize abuse and neglect, what can be done about it, as well
as where to go if there is suspicion of elder abuse.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 5- 2
METHOD
As part of their

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

2006 - 2007
San Luis Obispo County
Grand Jury
FINAL REPORT
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
P. O. Box 4910
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Telephone: ( 805) 781- 5188
www. slocourts. net/ grandjury
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
INTRODUCTION
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................ i
INTRODUCTORY LETTER................................................................................. iii
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................... v
AUTHORITIES FOR GRAND JURY INQUIRIES............................................... vii
AUTHORITIES FOR AGENCY RESPONSES .................................................... ix
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
1. DIABLO CANYON: SAN LUIS OBISPO’S KATRINA? .............................. 1- 1
2. YOUR VOTE COUNTS – IT REALLY DOES .............................................. 2- 1
3. SLO PUBLIC DEFENDERS ........................................................................ 3- 1
4. COUNTY CONTRACTS: DO WE GET WHAT WE PAY FOR? .................. 4- 1
5. ELDER AND DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE............................................... 5- 1
6. GETTING TO KNOW LAFCO...................................................................... 6- 1
7. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT ................................ 7- 1
8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY...................... 8- 1
9. HISTORIC PRESERVATION....................................................................... 9- 1
10. CALIFORNIA VALLEY.............................................................................. 10- 1
11. TRIBAL CONSULTATION – A PEACEFUL APPROACH ........................ 11- 1
12. VECTOR CONTROL - AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION ............................. 12- 1
13. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION.... 13- 1
PRISONS, JAILS & LOCAL LOCK- UPS INSPECTION REPORTS
14. REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES IN SLO COUNTY........ 14- 1
15. CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY ................................................................ 15- 1
16. THE EL PASO DE ROBLES YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY ......... 16- 1
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page ii
17. COUNTY JAIL ........................................................................................... 17- 1
18. JUVENILE HALL – JUVENILE SERVICES CENTER............................... 18- 1
19. LOCAL LOCK- UPS................................................................................... 19- 1
REPONSES TO 2005- 2006 GRAND JURY REPORTS
COUNTY HARBORS ....................................................................................... R- 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLEET GARAGE............................................. R- 1
PESTICIDE USE AT THE AGRICULTURAL/ URBAN INTERFACE................ R- 2
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION...................................... R- 3
LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT.............................................. R- 3
AREA ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.................................................. R- 4
BICYCLE RIDING IN SAN LUIS COUNTY...................................................... R- 4
ATASCADERO HIGH SCHSOOL: RACIAL ISSUES...................................... R- 5
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS................................................................................. R- 6
OAK TREE PRESERVATION IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY..................... R- 7
AGING OUT: THE FUTURE OF FOSTER CHILDREN ................................... R- 8
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDITS ................................................... R- 8
RESTRAINING ORDERS: PAPER THIN PROTECTION ................................ R- 9
CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY..................................................................... R- 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL AND HONOR FARM............................. R- 10
JUVENILE HALL/ JUVENILE SERVICES CENTER ...................................... R- 10
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page iii
INTRODUCTORY LETTER
Each year in June, nineteen people are selected by the Superior Court from among citizen
volunteers in San Luis County to serve for a full year as members of the Grand Jury. Members
of the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury were drawn from all areas of the county and had diverse
educational and professional experiences. The resulting mix of ideas and talents, combined with
a high level of dedication and energy allowed this group to produce informative and incisive
reports about the workings of county government.
For the benefit of citizens who may be uninformed about how a grand jury operates and how its
reports are generated, and for those who may have an interest in serving on a future grand jury,
the following explanation is offered.
Citizens of the county who apply for grand jury service are invited to an orientation session for
an overview of the process. They are then interviewed by a judge and, iff approved, their name
is forwarded for inclusion in the annual grand jury lottery. Random selection results in panel
members and alternates.
Only panel members are sworn in and instructed in their charge by the presiding judge. Jurors
take an oath of confidentiality regarding any grand jury matters, not only for their term, but for
the rest of their lives. Grand juries conduct proceedings behind closed doors, as required by law,
primarily for the protection of people who file complaints or who testify during investigations.
Once a grand jury is impaneled, jurors spend six weeks in training with county and court
officials, including the District Attorney, County Counsel, County Auditor, County
Administrator and the Superior Court’s Administrator and Jury Commissioner. Before jurors
begin any investigations, they receive training on the Grand Jury Procedures Handbook and the
Penal Codes which apply to their work. The current handbook and penal codes are on the grand
jury’s website at www. slocourts. net/ grandjury.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page iv
After the training period is completed, jurors begin by reviewing any complaints received that
might be the subject of an inquiry and identifying areas of interest that might become the subject
of self- initiated investigations. A review is done to determine which agencies of local
government have not been looked into by prior grand juries within the past five years. Grand
juries inspect and report on local prison conditions, as mandated by law.
Each grand jury sets its own rules of proceeding and creates committees to investigate and create
reports. The process of generating reports from grand jury investigations has a number of
safeguards built in:
1. A committee first develops an action plan and brings it to the full grand jury for review
and approval. Jurors with a conflict of interest absent themselves from all activities on that
topic and recuse themselves from all voting on the report.
2. Once an investigation is complete, a draft of the report is written by the committee and
reviewed by the full jury. The jury gives input and eventual approval by a vote of at least
12 of its 19 members.
3. The report is then sent to the County Counsel for legal review.
4. The report then goes to the responsible government department for a check on its ‘ factual
accuracy.’ Input is carefully considered, and corrections are made if necessary.
5. The final draft of the report is submitted to the presiding judge of the Superior Court for
review and approval.
6. The report is then released to the media and posted on the grand jury’s website.
It is important to note that while a report’s findings are based on solid facts gathered by the grand
jury’s investigations, the conclusions and recommendations are the result of the panel’s agreed-upon
opinion. Each report is presented to the appropriate department or agency which must
respond within 60 days. No later than 90 days after the release of the report, the governing body
of the public agency must comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings
and recommendations in the report.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page v
Positive changes have resulted from grand jury investigations within San Luis Obispo County.
Some recommendations take time to implement, and some can be adopted immediately:
1. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury questioned the efficacy of the complex land use program,
based on the transfer of development credits. This report has prompted a reevaluation of
the system in the light of present pressures on land use in this county.
2. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury also recommended creating increased protection for oak trees.
The County Planning Department now has strict ordinances to protect oak trees in
unincorporated areas.
Serving as a member of a grand jury is a unique opportunity. It is a challenging and rewarding
experience for those with an interest in how government works and with a willingness to spend
time and energy as part of a team. Participation on the grand jury educates jurors about local
government and in turn, the grand jury reports educate the public at large.
Each grand jury leaves its own unique mark. We, the members of the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury
have worked hard to make our mark by issuing a Final Report which is both a roadmap for
change and a source of thought- provoking information.
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Grand Jury wishes to thank the following:
• Presiding Judge Roger Picquet for his excellent guidance and support during this Grand
Jury’s term.
• Members of our local and regional media outlets for their valuable assistance in
publicizing our reports. Without their interest and support, only a fraction of the public
would be aware of our work.
• Staff members of local government agencies for their cooperation and assistance to the
Grand Jury in carrying out our inquiries. The Grand Jury believes that the county
agencies we reviewed this year are, on the whole, serving the public with efficiency and
dedication.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page vi
• AGP Video of Morro Bay for providing the Grand Jury, free of charge, tapes of the
weekly Board of Supervisors’ meetings.
• Sylvia Martinez, Administrative Assistant to the Grand Jury, for her able and unfailingly
cheerful support of all of us during the past year.
And finally, we thank those members of the public who took the time and trouble to send in their
concerns and complaints to the Grand Jury during the past year. Citizen participation is the
essence of good government.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page vii
AUTHORITIES FOR GRAND JURY INQUIRIES
The authority for our inquiries is sanctioned by one or more of the following sections of the
California Penal Code:
§ 919( b): “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within
the county.”
§ 925: “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the
officers, departments, or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of
any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which
the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts. The
investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year, but the grand jury shall not
duplicate any examination of financial statements which has been performed by or for the board of
supervisors pursuant to Section 25250 of the Government Code; this provision shall not be construed
to limit the power of the grand jury to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records
of the officers, departments, or functions of the county”.
§ 925( a): “ The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or
joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by
this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of
the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such
city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit. The
grand jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all joint powers agencies in the county,
including the abolition or creation of agencies and the equipment for, or the method or system of
performing the duties of, the several agencies. It shall cause a copy of any such report to be
transmitted to the governing body of any affected agency. As used in this section, " joint powers
agency" means an agency described in Section 6506 of the Government Code whose jurisdiction
encompasses all or part of a county.”
§ 928: “ Every grand jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all county officers in the
county, including the abolition or creation of offices and the equipment for, or the method or system
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page viii
of performing the duties of, the several offices. Such investigation and report shall be conducted
selectively each year. The grand jury shall cause a copy of such report to be transmitted to each
member of the board of supervisors of the county.”
§ 933.5: “ A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any special- purpose
assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county or the local agency formation
commission in the county, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter,
may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such district or
commission.”
§ 933.6: “ A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any nonprofit corporation
established by or operated on behalf of a public entity the books and records of which it is authorized
by law to examine, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may
investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such nonprofit
corporation.” ( emphasis added)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page ix
AUTHORITIES FOR AGENCY RESPONSES
The following section of the California Penal Code is cited as the authority under which each
agency must respond to the Superior Court:
§ 933.05 ( a) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the
response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons therefore.
§ 933.05 ( b) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
recommendation, the
responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury
report.
( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
§ 933.05 ( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the
agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand
jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel
matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or
department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her
agency or department.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page x
§ 933.05 ( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for
the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that
person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
§ 933.05 ( e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that
investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or
upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be
detrimental.
§ 933.05 ( f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand
jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after
the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a
public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final
report.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 1
1. DIABLO CANYON: SAN LUIS OBISPO’S KATRINA?
INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the breakdown of the emergency response system in New
Orleans was apparent and appalling to the entire nation over a period of days, weeks and months.
Citizens of every community must have watched and asked themselves, “ Could this happen in
my community?”
Every region has its unique challenges in terms of potential natural and human- caused disasters.
In San Luis Obispo we live in proximity to one of only two nuclear power plants in the State of
California. Although there has never been an alert or a site area emergency in the 22 years that
Diablo Canyon Power Plant has been in operation, the possibility exists. If there were a disaster
at Diablo, would our emergency response system respond effectively?
PURPOSE
The San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services ( OES) has basic responsibility for
providing integrated and effective safety and emergency management services in any natural or
human- caused emergency. Although past Grand Juries have looked at OES before, this study
focuses in particular on emergency planning related to Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. In
the aftermath of the Katrina fiasco, the Grand Jury was particularly interested in looking at
disaster planning in response to possible threats, which might require evacuation or sheltering- in-place.
Our concerns included evacuation routes, interagency communication, communication
with the public, special needs evacuation, sheltering in place, and potassium iodide distribution
methods.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 2
METHOD
As part of its investigation, Grand Jurors:
• Toured Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and listened to presentations by the Vice
President of Nuclear Services and the Manager of Government and Public Relations.
• Toured the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Operations Center and listened to
presentations by the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff and Under Sheriff.
• Interviewed the Deputy County Administrative Officer and one of the long time
Emergency Service Coordinators.
• Interviewed the Pacific Gas & Electric ( PG& E) Emergency Planning Coordinator.
• Interviewed three board members from Mothers for Peace.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 3
• Interviewed both the San Luis Obispo County and the San Luis Obispo City Community
Emergency Response Team ( CERT) program coordinators.
• Conducted an informal telephone survey of 12 local pharmacies regarding availability of
potassium iodide.
• Reviewed the emergency planning information for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
contained in the Customer Guide Section of the 2005 AT& T telephone book.
• Reviewed the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Management Coordination Overview
Document Version 2.
• Reviewed the Federal Department of Homeland Security’s draft report on a 2006 nuclear
power plant emergency response exercise conducted October 25, 2006.
• Reviewed the 2004- 2005 Annual Report of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety
Committee ( DCISC).
• Reviewed the American Red Cross Shelter- in- Place Fact Sheet.
• Reviewed the CERT Student Manual.
• Reviewed the California Office of Emergency Services “ San Simeon Earthquake After
Action Report” November 2, 2004
• Reviewed the websites for the following organizations: the U. S. Department of Health
and Human Services Center for Disease Control ( Emergency Preparedness and
Response); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( Frequently Asked Question About
Potassium Iodide); American Thyroid Association ( Public Health Statement), American
Academy of Pediatrics ( April 2003 News Release on Potassium Iodide).
BACKGROUND
The Office of Emergency Services ( OES) is responsible for developing a plan for responding to
an emergency at Diablo Canyon, and for coordinating the plan with other emergency response
organizations such as parent company Pacific Gas and Electric, the State of California, Federal
Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA). The
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 4
purpose of the OES Emergency Operations Plan is to protect the health and safety of the public
by mobilizing emergency workers, notifying the public, and implementing decisions for
protective action.
Organization
Under the plan organized by OES, emergency personnel, are divided into four primary groups as
follows:
The Command Group includes the County Administrative Officer, the County Sheriff, the
County Fire Chief and the County Health Officer. These key managers direct and coordinate the
county’s emergency response and act as the liaison with cities, state and federal agencies, and
PG& E.
The Operations Group is made up of county, state and non- governmental agencies
coordinating direct response activities in the field. This group includes, for example, police, fire,
emergency medical, public works, school districts and the American Red Cross.
COMMAND
GROUP
OPERATIONS
GROUP
LOGISTICS
GROUP
UNIFIED DOSE
ASSESSMENT
CENTER
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 5
The Logistics Group provides management and specialized skills. It generally consists of the
County Counsel, General Services, Information Services, the County Public Information Officer,
and Emergency Services Coordinators.
The Unified Dose Assessment Center receives radiation measurement data from Diablo
Canyon Power Plant as well as from pre- positioned radiation monitors in place at various
locations in the county. Based on this information, the Command Group makes decisions about
protective actions for emergency workers and the public. The Center is coordinated by the
County Director of Environmental Health and brings together county staff from Environmental
Health, the Agricultural Commission, and the Air Pollution Control District, as well as PG& E
staff and state and federal agencies.
Facility
The County Emergency Operations Center ( EOC), which includes the working spaces for the
Command Group, Operations Group and Logistics Group mentioned above, and the Unified
Dose Assessment Center, is located in a single building near the Sheriff’s office. In addition, the
building houses the Sheriff’s Dispatch Center, the Joint Media Center, and PG& E’s Emergency
Operations Facility. A joint Information Center/ Media Center is located nearby to support the
EOC. This building was funded by the Diablo Canyon Power Plant project as a requirement of
the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission to handle potential emergencies at Diablo
Canyon. However, the EOC also serves as San Luis Obispo County’s core location for any type
of emergency, including major disasters and terrorism; as well as earthquake, fire, flood,
tsunami, hazardous materials, and bomb threats.
Protective Action Recommendations
The basic danger in a nuclear power plant emergency is radiation exposure. The amount of
radiation released, the length of the release, and the prevailing weather patterns determine
exposure. The job of the Command Group is to use all available information to decide on
recommendations to best protect the public and emergency workers. They may recommend
sheltering, or evacuation of specific areas.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 6
Sheltering means staying indoors with doors and windows closed and ventilation systems turned
off. This decreases chances of breathing contaminated air or receiving airborne contamination.
Emergency Service personnel recommend that the shelterer use duct tape and plastic sheeting to
seal doors and windows and have a portable radio for continuing emergency information.
Evacuation would be ordered by Protective Action Zone ( PAZ). These are the twelve areas
described in the AT& T telephone book that surround the power plant. OES considers it
extremely unlikely that a Diablo emergency would ever require an evacuation of all twelve
Protective Action Zones. Hence, it is important for residents to know what their zone number is,
and to have a radio or television tuned to a local station for information.
The Command Group may also recommend, as a supplemental protective measure, the use of
potassium iodide ( KI). While potassium iodide protects the thyroid gland from radioactive
iodine, it does not protect the rest of the body from other contaminants. In 2003 The Federal
Government provided KI to states with nuclear power plants, which, in turn, distributed it to
areas where plants were located. There was a distribution to residents of Diablo Canyon PAZ’s
in the spring of 2003. It is the state’s responsibility to distribute KI to those who wish to take it
within four hours of a radiation emergency.
NARRATIVE
The Grand Jury’s investigation focused on several areas of particular interest. Among these
were the availability of alternative evacuation routes, particularly from Avila Beach; interagency
communication and communication with the public; emergency preparation plans for the
disabled; information about sheltering in place; and potassium iodide distribution.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 7
Evacuation Routes
Because of their proximity, residents of Avila Beach are especially vulnerable in any discussion
of evacuation because there appears to be only one way out. But there is an alternate route,
which has been designated since 1993 and is a part of the Emergency Response Plan. This is
Blue Heron Road from the San Luis Bay Inn and exiting out San Luis Bay Drive through Avila
Bay Estates ( see Appendix A). The plan includes traffic control at the points noted in Appendix
A and notification to the public when these routes are opened. Traffic control means an officer
would be assigned to those points to direct traffic if an evacuation order were given. A second
alternate route through the golf course exists via Harford Canyon Road and Lupine Canyon
Road. The private property owner has been cooperative in assuring that these roads will be
maintained and improved so that their condition is adequate for use as emergency evacuation
routes.
The Cave Landing Road to Bluff Drive leading to Shell Beach is apparently no longer
considered an alternative. An existing dirt road through this private property could be upgraded
to provide an exit route from Avila Beach to Shell Beach. This possibility arose when the county
and land conservationists proposed buying the 120 acre parcel in October 2006.
Communication in an Emergency
The Emergency Operations Center has long had a “ Red Net” phone system, hard- wired to public
safety offices. Using this system, the entire emergency system was mobilized and in place at the
EOC within a half hour following the San Simeon earthquake in December 2003. Interagency
communication can be conducted via land phone lines within the EOC, as well as cell phones
and pagers. The EOC also contains a communications facility set up by the Amateur Radio
Emergency Service/ Radio Amateurs Civil Emergency Services that can provide communication
throughout the county as needed. After Hurricane Katrina knocked out all land lines and cell
towers, Homeland Security provided funding that allowed the EOC to purchase a new satellite
phone system which functions with complete independence from local conditions.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 8
The initial public warning is, of course, the siren system. According to the AT& T telephone
book, the sirens’ message is to go indoors and listen to an Emergency Alert System station on the
radio, or any other radio or television station, which will then inform residents and visitors what
to do. It is assumed that everyone can access and comprehend a radio or TV message, and that
radio, television and electrical systems are functioning.
Special Needs Emergency Planning
In the past, caretakers for people with various disabilities had been critical of county disaster
planning because it did not adequately address the special needs of many members of the
community, such as wheelchair accessibility and auditory limitations issues. Following Katrina,
a private ombudsman and the OES formed a committee to address some of these problems.
Some of their ideas, such as simplified mail- in special needs request cards, have been
implemented. At their suggestion, a workshop was held in June 2006, which included 200
representatives of all licensed facilities for residents with special needs. The emphasis was on
emergency training for people working with vulnerable populations. According to participants
the workshop was extremely valuable. The primary message was, “ You need to be able to take
care of yourselves for 72 hours.”
Sheltering
Sheltering orders for a radioactive release would generally be short term, and the brief directions
provided in the AT& T telephone book reflect this. However, in almost every interview, Grand
Jury members heard emergency planners stress the need for all individuals to be prepared to
provide for themselves for at least 72 hours. The disastrous days after Hurricane Katrina served
to emphasize the importance of self- reliance in an extreme emergency. Additional information
about basic emergency supplies and the benefits of a battery- or self- powered radio would be of
great value to county residents.
Potassium Iodide ( KI) Distribution
The information about potassium iodide provided in the PG& E booklet and the 2005 AT& T
phone directory states that it “ can be taken as a supplemental protective measure,” after specific
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 9
instruction by a public health official. There is then reference to a website for more information.
To access information, the user must go to www. oes. ca. gov; from there he/ she must click on
“ Radiological/ Nuclear” and then locate “ Obtaining Potassium Iodide,” which then simply lists
two commercial websites for Anbex and Thyrosafe. For those who can’t navigate the internet,
the phone book provides an 800 number where “ a recorded KI information line has been
established to answer questions you may have about the program.” That number offers 9
options, none of which are related to potassium iodide. ( One deals with emergency preparedness
kits, but does not mention KI.) 1
The AT& T phone directory also indicates that taking KI is voluntary. This would seem to be the
kind of decision that residents within the Protective Action Zones and Public Education Zones
would need to make in advance. Nothing in the material provided, or in the references given,
provides information that would be helpful in making a decision about KI. The American
Thyroid Association states, “ Highest priority for potassium iodide use should be given to babies,
children up to 18 years of age, and pregnant women.” The U. S. Food and Drug Administration
( FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research states, “ Adults older than 40 have the lowest
chance of developing thyroid cancer or thyroid injury after contamination with radioactive
iodine. They also have a greater chance of having an allergic reaction to KI.” A National
Research Council Board on Radiation Effects Report dated December 2003 states, “ There is little
benefit in providing KI to adults over 40.” On January 12, 2005 the FDA approved a more
palatable KI oral solution for use in children ( See Appendix B). This half- dose oral solution is
not mentioned in any of the materials provided to the public.
The phone book further states that potassium iodide can be purchased in some local pharmacies.
Grand Jury members conducted an informal survey in September 2006 and randomly called 12
pharmacies in San Luis Obispo, Pismo Beach, Los Osos and Arroyo Grande. Eleven pharmacies
stated that they did not stock KI. Two said they could order the liquid form only, but would
require a prescription.
1 The 2006 Phone Book has a new number which connects to the State of California OES.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 10
CONCLUSIONS
San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services is widely recognized as one of the best in
the State of California as well as the western region.
In a State of California “ After Action Report” following the San Simeon earthquake, a FEMA
staff member was quoted as saying, “ The response to the San Simeon Earthquake by local,
county, state, federal and volunteer agencies at all five SEMS ( Standardized Emergency
Management System) response levels was a textbook example of how a large, complex, multi-jurisdiction
emergency can be managed in an efficient effective manner.” In June 2003, the
State of California awarded a commendation to the county for exemplary performance during
Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Preparedness exercises.
The U. S. Department of Homeland Security conducts a Radiological Emergency Preparedness
Program exercise in this county biennially. The most recent drill occurred on October 25 and 26,
2006. Twenty- one participating agencies were evaluated in 32 areas. In these areas all criteria
were met and there were no deficiencies assessed.
On November 15, 2006 the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency presented its fourth annual
regional Emergency Preparedness Leadership Award to San Luis Obispo County. The region
represented included Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal
Nations. The award was in recognition of unified leadership in developing a joint nuclear power
plant emergency response plan, which is unique to most areas of the United States.
In summary, the OES has developed a unified emergency response plan that requires all local
and locally based agencies to work together effectively and cohesively. Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant has provided the funding for the County Emergency Operations Center, for much of
the equipment in the Center, for three of the four Emergency Services Coordinators, for the EOC
Red Net phone system which connects directly to all seven cities in the county as well as Cal
Poly, and for much of the extensive training and sophisticated emergency drills which go far
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 11
beyond the level of most county emergency service offices. Finally, the relatively sparse
population of the county gives us an advantage in dealing with an emergency that might require
evacuation. Could there be another Katrina in San Luis Obispo County? Clearly the answer is
no. That said, there are several areas where current procedures should be reviewed.
FINDINGS
1. Because of their proximity, residents of Avila Beach are understandably most concerned
about limited emergency evacuation routes. . The county has been successful in working
cooperatively with the private property owner of the Avila Beach Resort and Golf
Course. For residents on the south side of Avila Beach, the Cave Landing to Bluff Drive
route, originally considered as a possible exit, seems like an obvious alternative. The
existing dirt road should be upgraded and designated as another alternative evacuation
route from Avila Beach.
2. Emergency responders repeatedly stress the need for all residents to be self- sufficient for
at least 72 hours. As one Emergency Services Coordinator put it, “ Planning starts at the
individual level and moves out from there.” However there is limited information about
what people need to do to prepare to be self- sufficient.
3. The very successful meeting on emergency planning for people with special needs was
specifically for providers in licensed county facilities. It did not include special needs
residents who are living on their own with family or professional assistance.
4. Liquid potassium iodide especially prepared for infants and children, the most vulnerable
population to radiation, is not readily available. The information in the AT& T telephone
book about potassium iodide is insufficient and outdated. Currently the State of
California does not stock liquid KI.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 12
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Office of Emergency Services should work with private owners San Miguelito
Partners to explore the addition of Cave Landing to Bluff Drive as an alternative
emergency exit from Avila Beach. ( Finding 1)
2. Information about self- sufficiency, how to prepare a 72 hour emergency kit, and how to
obtain potassium iodide as an individual should be developed and mailed directly to
county households annually. As part of this mailing, information about CERT
( Community Emergency Response Team) should also be included. This could be
included in the annual Disabled Registration card mailer or sent as a separate mailer to all
county residents. ( Finding 2)
3. Using the Disabled Registration cards, OES should organize meetings with independent
special needs residents and their caretakers to discuss emergency response and self-sufficiency.
( Finding 3)
4. An information sheet about potassium iodide should be prepared for distribution to
county obstetricians and pediatricians. OES should review all information in the AT& T
telephone book headed “ Nuclear Emergency Information” for currency, accuracy and
clarity. Particular attention should be paid to the section on potassium iodide. ( Finding
4)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 13
REQUIRED RESPONSES
1. San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services: Due ( All Findings and
Recommendations)
2. San Luis Obispo County Health Officer: Due ( Findings and Recommendations 3 & 4)
3. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors: Due ( All Findings and
Recommendations)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 14
Appendix A
Avila Beach Emergency Evacuation Routes
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 15
Appendix B
NRC Approval of Liquid Potassium Iodide
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 1- 16
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 1
2. YOUR VOTE COUNTS – IT REALLY DOES
Hanging chads, faulty or rigged voting machines, suspect totals from voting machines in Ohio
and a herd of confused voters in Florida are what many people remember from the 2000 and
2004 elections. What about San Luis Obispo County? Did anything like that happen here?
Could it happen here? How free from suspicion or corruption are the election results in San Luis
Obispo County?
ORIGIN
The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the use of electronic voting machines asking that
it investigate the vulnerabilities of the County’s present voting system, which, the complainant
alleged, included machines that were “ hackable.” The complainant also alleged faulty software
protocol, and that memory cards contained within electronic machines could be programmed to
determine election outcomes, and cited information regarding San Luis Obispo County’s 2002
primary election posted at www. blackbox. org. That site alleged that on Election Day, 2002,
Diebold machines “ phoned home” at 3: 31 PM and reported vote totals from the precinct.
METHOD
Early Posting of Absentee Ballot Results
The Grand Jury’s investigation began by focusing on an allegation of early posting of absentee
ballot results in the 2002 election.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 2
It is important to state here that the Grand Jury found no evidence to
support the charges and believes them to be baseless rumors.
1. Some web sites dealt with this story as an exposé, while others reported it as if it were
actual news.
2. Charges were made that some results of absentee ballots had been posted on the Diebold
website at 3: 31 PM on Election Day, 2002. CBS reported it as true.
3. The Grand Jury interviewed the County Clerk- Recorder and the Assistant County Clerk-
Recorder regarding this reported incident, which, if true, could have changed the outcome
of that election.
Election of November, 2006
1. On November 4, 2006, three days prior to the election, members of the Grand Jury visited
the Clerk- Recorder’s office to observe the routines for handling, processing and counting
absentee ballots. While there, they reviewed data security procedures and general office
security procedures.
2. On Monday, November 6, 2006, the day before Election Day, members of the Grand Jury
returned to the Clerk- Recorder’s office to observe the final preparation activities for
Election Day and to again review security procedures.
3. On Tuesday, November 7, 2006, Election Day, members of the Grand Jury fanned out
across the County going to randomly selected polling locations to observe the opening of
the polls. They inspected ballot boxes to be sure they were empty and checked the
optical scanners to be sure digital counters had been set to zero. They watched as the first
ballot was scanned to be sure the digital counter then read “ 1.” In addition they observed
the poll workers, the facility, and the early flow of voters through the polling place.
4. Throughout the day’s activities, members of the Grand Jury monitored selected polling
locations. They observed the physical conditions of polling places, staffing levels, and
the flow of voters through the facility.
5. Polling locations were also inspected at the end of the day as well as through the closing
of the polls. This included the end- of- balloting routine used on the optical scanners, the
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 3
tally by the inspectors, the packing of ballots and supplies, and the transfer of these
materials by the polling location’s precinct inspector to either a regional staging area or
directly to the Clerk- Recorder’s office.
6. In some locations, the balloting results were transferred by modem to the Clerk-
Recorder’s office, while at others the results were transferred electronically when the
optical scanner arrived at the office of the Clerk- Recorder.
7. Members of the Grand Jury arrived at the Clerk- Recorder’s office at approximately 7: 30
PM on Election Day to observe tabulating and publishing of balloting results, as well as
the receiving and processing of ballots and supplies as they were brought to the site.
8. While there, members of the Grand Jury observed procedures followed by poll inspectors
as they arrived to return poll materials to the outside reception team waiting at the curb in
front of the Clerk- Recorder’s office. They also observed the outside reception team as
they checked the materials being returned and then processed those items. They stayed
until after the last truck from the regional centers arrived and was unloaded, finally
leaving at approximately 11: 00 PM.
9. Subsequent to the certification of the election results, on November 28th, members of the
Grand Jury requested additional information from the County Clerk- Recorder. The
requested information was provided promptly.
NARRATIVE
Both the 2000 and 2004 elections cast a pall over the entire election process leaving many
Americans wondering if their votes were counted at all and, if they were, were they counted
correctly? With evidence of wrong- doing at the highest levels, media reports of hacking, and a
myriad of problems with non- paper balloting, many of us need reassurance that our vote will be
counted as it was cast.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 4
Misinformation on the Web
While stories about San Luis Obispo’s 2002 results being posted on the Internet hours before the
polls closed were widespread, we found those allegations not to be true. We also found that no
news organization contacted the Clerk- Recorder to verify or disprove the story.
The Grand Jury found that what had actually occurred was:
a) At the 2002 primary election, a data backup was made on Election Day to ensure that the
new system was operating as expected and in case of a crash, to secure the data.
b) A Diebold representative offered to store that backup on Diebold’s servers and the Clerk-
Recorder agreed. This was the third election in which the system had been used, and the
first in which touch- screen machines were used for early voting in the office and was a
reasonable and prudent decision by the Clerk- Recorder. After that election, the data stayed
on Diebold’s FTP servers ( isolated, secure units used for this purpose.) While that may have
been an oversight, it was after the fact and the data was of no use to anyone since the results
had been made public and precinct by precinct breakdowns of the results were widely
available.
c) It was that data, then 18 months old, that was discovered on the Diebold FTP site. No
current data had been hacked.
d) No one contacted the Clerk- Recorder to ask about what had happened or to verify the
story.
Current Security and Backup protocols
Shortly before the election, the Clerk- Recorder programs the memory cards used in its optical
scanners, inserts them into the scanner, and places appropriate seals over them. The County uses
Diebold’s AccuVote optical scanners to count votes at the polling locations, as well as a similar
device in the Clerk- Recorder’s office to count absentee ballots.
The server used in San Luis Obispo County elections is housed in a lockable metal cabinet. Only
the County Clerk- Recorder and Assistant County Clerk- Recorder have keys to that cabinet. For
added security, a camera is focused on it. Prior to the election, the only connection to the server
is from the optical scanners in the office used to transmit the data from absentee ballots as they
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 5
are run. There are no connections to modems, cable modems, T- 1 lines or the like for output or
input from external sources.
A system that is not connected to any such device cannot be accessed remotely by hackers.
Just as you cannot make or receive telephone calls if you’ve unplugged your telephone from the
wall, a computer cannot receive or transmit data if it is not connected. The server is not
connected to its modem until a few minutes after 8: 00 PM on Election Day, when the polls are
closed.
CONCLUSIONS
Voters in San Luis Obispo County’s 2006 election can be assured that after casting their ballots,
whether in person or absentee, not only were their votes counted, and counted correctly, but that
their vote counted. No chads, no stolen votes, no miscounted votes, no lost votes, no rigged
voting machines or suspect totals. Not here in San Luis Obispo County.
The Clerk- Recorder repeatedly reviewed the routines and protocols to be sure that Election Day
ran smoothly. The planning and logistics were finely tuned with continual checks in place to be
sure that all ballots received were counted as the voter intended. As in past years, experienced
part- time workers came back to help the regular staff with the extra work during election time.
FINDINGS
1. The pre- election procedures for ensuring that optical scanners accurately counted our
votes were followed to the letter. The back- up routines employed by the Clerk-
Recorder’s office to ensure against any loss of voting data meet the highest standards.
The computer security policies in place precluded the possibility of hacking into, altering,
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 6
or modifying any data in the system. Please see Appendix A for a detailed description of
that process.
2. On Election night, several AccuVote scanners were returned to the reception area with
damaged seals. Please see Appendix B for a list of those anomalies prepared by the
Clerk- Recorder’s office.
3. The procedures used for securing, processing, counting, and verifying San Luis Obispo
County’s absentee ballots were followed explicitly. Please see Appendix C for a detailed
description of that process.
4. The procedures employed at the polling places on Election Day for securing ballots,
ensuring that eligible voters were guaranteed their right to vote, relaying or transporting
ballots or results, and safeguarding the equipment were very effective as well. Please see
Appendix D for a detailed description of that process.
5. The procedures for gathering, processing, verifying and publishing the results of balloting
on Election Day worked to perfection. The staff at the County Clerk- Recorder’s office
made it looks simple as well. Please see Appendix E for a detailed description of that
process.
6. The quality control procedures used for safeguarding and storing ballots and other critical
items after the election have been designed to offer both security of these items and an
audit trail should any questions arise within 22 months of the election. Please see
Appendix F for a description of that process.
7. The rumor regarding posting of balloting information was proven to be false.
8. The November, 2006, countywide election cost the taxpayers about $ 570,000.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 7
APPENDICES
Appendix A Security and Backup Procedures
Appendix B November 7, 2006 Seal Anomalies
Appendix C Absentee Ballot Processing
Appendix D Election Day Balloting and Processing
Appendix E Activities at the County Clerk- Recorder’s Office
Appendix F Gathering election materials at the end of the day.
Appendix G Samples of Checklists Used by the Clerk- Recorder:
1. Processing AV Ballot Applications ( AV = Absentee
Voter)
2. Absentee Ballot Stuffing Instructions
3. Absentee Processing Instructions Checking Incoming
Envelopes
4. Processing Returned Absentee Ballots
5. Supply Box Contents
6. Ballot Statement
7. Canvass Manual
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 8
APPENDIX A
Security and Backup Procedures
• Shortly before the election, appropriate data for the upcoming election is programmed into
the memory cards and inserted into the AccuVote systems. A seal is then applied to the
scanner.
• There are four seals, one red plastic and three blue adhesives that are placed on each
AccuVote scanner after the memory card is inserted and set for the election.
• The first, the red plastic seal, is placed through the hole to lock the bar securing the memory
card slot. The number of the red plastic seal is recorded on a memory card seal log which is
kept with the AccuVote.
• The poll- workers are instructed to ensure this red seal is in place upon arrival in the morning.
The Precinct Assistants sign off that this seal is in place. If the precinct assistant has to
change a machine out on Election Day, they will place a new red seal on the machine and
record the new number on the log. This seal must be intact when it arrives at the collection
center and/ or main office.
• If the machine’s modem has failed, the memory card is removed at the collection center so
the results can be transmitted from another machine.
• If this seal is not intact on election morning, a new memory card is programmed and both the
AccuVote and memory card are replaced.
• Adhesive blue seals are placed in the following locations:
o Across the metal bar, that secures the memory card slot.
o Over the screw on the right side of the AccuVote case.
o Over the modem connection on the back of the machine.
• When a blue adhesive seal is removed, the word VOID will appear on the seal.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 9
o These seals were added in response to a concern that someone with access to the
AccuVote could remove all the screws in the case, open the case and remove the memory
card without breaking the red seal.
o In addition, the seal across the modem connection protects poll- workers from
allegations that they allowed access to machines through a modem prior to election night.
• On their first visit of the morning, the precinct assistant verifies that all three blue seals and
the red seal are in place.
• The machine is kept in the locked ballot box until it is removed after the polls close. Then the
data is either transmitted directly from the polling place or it is returned to the collection
center/ main office where the data is transferred.
• The blue seal over the modem connection would be removed in those instances when the
results are transmitted from the polling place.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 10
APPENDIX B
November 7, 2006 Seal Anomalies
The following anomalies occurred on November 7, 2006:
• Vote Center 15- A seal was intact at the collection center, but broken in transit to the
SLO office.
• Vote Center 20- A seal was broken by Clerk’s staff at collection center.
• Vote Center 21- A seal was broken by Clerk’s staff at collection center.
• Vote Center 46- A seal was broken by Clerk’s staff at collection center.
At one of the vote centers in South County, the precinct inspector removed the seal covering the
modem while searching for the on/ off button. When the precinct assistant arrived, the other poll-workers
attested that the seal was intact when the machine arrived at the polling place.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 11
APPENDIX C
Absentee Ballot Processing
• There were approximately 68,000 absentee ballots mailed out to the 155,495 registered
voters in this county for the November, 2006, General Election.
• By the Saturday prior to the election, approximately 39,000 of those ballots had been
returned and counted. By the time the election was certified, over 55,000 absentee ballots
were returned and counted.
• Counting absentee ballots is a very labor intensive and precise process with each of the
approximately 55,000 ballots being handled several times.
• Most absentee ballots arrive at the Clerk/ Recorder’s office by mail. Others are dropped off at
the office by voters in the days preceding Election Day.
• On Election Day a designated team is stationed at the curb in front of the office to accept
ballots from voters who simply wish to drive up and drop off their ballots without getting out
of their cars. Some voters like to park and walk inside to personally deliver their ballots,
while others are dropped off at polling locations on Election Day.
• Upon arrival at the Clerk- Recorder’s office, the envelopes are inspected:
o For damage.
o To see if there is a check- mark in the box indicating the envelope contains a
damaged ballot.
o For a signature.
• Envelopes with any anomalies are set aside for further processing.
• Those that pass inspection are placed into trays and sent on to the next station for signature
verification.
• The County’s voter database not only has each voter’s name and address, but has a matching
scanned signature as well.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 12
• The pre- printed name and address on each ballot envelope is the information used to access
each voter’s record, and then the signature on the envelope is compared against the scanned
signature on file.
o If the signatures match, it is placed into a batch to be passed to the next station.
o If the signatures do not match, the envelope is set aside for further review and
special processing.
• From there the ballots are sent to the next station where they are batched into groups of 50
and then sent through a large envelope opener where they are slit.
o The slit envelopes with ballots inside are again counted into groups of 50 and sent
to the next station.
• At this point, the envelopes are opened, ballots removed, envelopes counted, ballots counted
and envelopes placed into a cardboard box, again in batches of 50.
• Each batch of 50 ballots is taken by an election worker, unfolded, and stacked face up. Each
of these ballots is inspected:
o For physical damage.
o To be sure the voter has not used a red pen or marked the ballot in a way that the
machine cannot read.
o To be sure that only the proper number of votes per ballot item has been cast ( i. e.
only one for Governor).
o For write- in votes, which must be hand tallied.
o If an anomaly is spotted, that ballot is set aside for further review to see if the
voter’s intention can be determined so it can be corrected or duplicated.
• The ballots, still in batches of 50 are then moved to the optical scanners.
o As staff feed them through the optical scanners, the votes are counted.
o If the scanner senses a problem, it stops, displays an error message and the staff
member determines the problem.
o Sometimes the ballot simply needs to be re- fed through the scanner and
occasionally the ballot markings may need to be clarified.
o In addition, the machines stop if a write- in ballot is detected so staff can check to
see if the write- in vote is valid and should be hand tallied.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 13
• There are typically four scanners in use, and all are connected to a server located a few feet
away.
• The server is in a lockable steel cabinet. It is not connected to a modem, T- 1 line, or any
other such device that would enable transmission of data to any location. The server is not
connected to the county’s local area network.
• The ballots are counted in groups of 50 to ensure that every ballot is counted and is counted
only once, but the batch is not committed until 200 ballots have been counted.
• Once the ballots are counted they are placed into a box with an identifying batch slip. The
box is sealed, labeled, and signed by either the County Clerk- Recorder or Assistant County
Clerk- Recorder.
o These boxes are stored for 22 months in accordance with the county’s retention
policy.
• The number of ballots that are moved through the system is logged to account for every
ballot. For instance, the processing board logs the number of ballots removed from the secure
room and the number of ballots that are returned ready for counting.
o They also log those ballots that need to be duplicated or that must have write- in
votes, hand tallied.
o In addition, the counting board logs the ballots it removes for counting, the
number counted and those that are returned to the secure room for duplication.
o Each of these logs is balanced at the end of the day and any anomalies are
investigated and resolved.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 14
APPENDIX D
Election Day Balloting and Processing
1. Election Day Polling locations typically house several precincts, each with its own set up,
tables and poll- workers. Signs make it easy for voters to locate their precincts. Upon
arriving at polling locations, voters go to their designated precinct area, identify
themselves, sign the registration list and are handed a ballot and privacy cover. Voters
then step into a voting booth where they mark their ballots, place them into a secrecy
sleeve and carry it to the optical scanner located within each polling place. Voters feed
their ballots into the optical scanner, which retains them, and hands the secrecy sleeve to
the poll- worker stationed there.
2. AutoMark Voter Assist Terminals, the special devices used by handicapped voters to
mark their ballots, are at each polling location. The AutoMark only marks the ballots;
they do not record votes. These ballots are returned to the desk where they are placed in
individual envelopes to be hand carried to the County Clerk- Recorder’s office where
they are tabulated.
3. Voters at the polling locations whose record indicates they had been sent an absentee
ballot are provided with provisional ballots. These ballots are placed into pink envelopes
to be carried to the County Clerk- Recorder’s office where they are tabulated once the
voters’ status can be verified.
4. Voters who arrive at the polling locations and face some other anomaly are also given a
provisional ballot. These ballots are also placed into pink envelopes to be carried to the
County Clerk- Recorder’s office for verification and tabulation.
5. While the polls close at 8: 00 PM, any voter already in line is permitted to vote. At some
polling locations, a poll worker walks out and stands at the end of the line as a “ marker”,
while at other locations the last eligible voter in line is asked to be the end of line
marker.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 15
6. After the last eligible voter has voted, the polling location inspector inserts the “ end of
vote” card into the optical scanner to conclude the day’s balloting. The digital readout
which indicates the number of votes cast is noted and compared with the handwritten
tally. The ballots are removed from the ballot box, and sent to the County elections
office in a sealed box.
7. If a telephone line is available at the polling location, the optical scanner is connected to
it and the balloting results are transmitted to the office of the Clerk- Recorder. If no
telephone line is available or there is some other problem with transmitting the data, the
poll inspector will relay that fact to the reception teams at the Clerk- Recorder’s office so
that the results can be transmitted upon arrival at the Clerk- Recorder’s office.
8. Poll inspectors then complete their paperwork and load all supplies, ballots and
equipment into their cars. Depending upon the poll’s location they either drive directly
to the office of the Clerk- Recorder in downtown San Luis Obispo to turn everything in,
or they go to one of several regional staging areas where a crew and truck is waiting to
gather the equipment from that area.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 16
APPENDIX E
Activities at the County Clerk- Recorder’s Office
1. By 8: 00 PM the reception teams have set up a table curb- side in front of the Clerk-
Recorder’s office. At this election, the first poll inspector pulled up at about 8: 40 PM
with a fairly steady trickle following. A little before 10: 00 PM the first truck from a
regional center pulled in and by 10: 30 all ballots, equipment and supplies had reached
the Clerk Recorder’s office.
2. As the poll inspectors arrived the reception teams removed the ballots, supplies, and
equipment from their cars and placed them on the table. The poll inspector walked to the
table, handed a packet to a member of the team and stated out loud, to identify it as
either “ Modemed” or “ Not Modemed.” The team member receiving the packet repeated
this statement aloud, so that the poll inspector could hear and confirm it, and so that the
team member who would carry the AccuVote scanner into the office would hear it as
well. They in turn would repeat it to a staffer inside whose job it was to separate and
track those AccuVote scanners whose data had been transmitted and those that had not.
Once there, the AccuVote scanners with data that had not been transmitted were
separated and taken to the secured area where their data is retrieved and fed into the
server.
3. The early results are typically those of the absentee voters with the transmitted results
being added as available.
4. State law requires that each county transmit some results to the Secretary of State’s office
by 9: 00 PM. Thereafter, results are transmitted every two hours.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 17
APPENDIX F
Gathering of Election Materials at the End of the Day
The following items are returned to the County Elections Office on Election Night:
• Envelope # 1
o Receipt for precinct supplies
o Voted ballots sealed in containers
o Voted absentee ballots and provisional ballots sealed in blue bags
• Envelope # 2
o Non- processed ballots ( voted but not counted on Election Day)
o Voter registration cards
o Provisional roster
o Provisional ballot statement
• Envelope # 3
o Voted write- in ballots
• Envelope # 4
o Roster
o Outside indexes
o Payroll sheet
o Yellow copy of ballot statement
o Inventory sheet from supply box contents list
o AccuVote totals tape ( for those precincts who have an AccuVote assigned)
• AccuVote unit
The following items are left at the polling place for pick up by the delivery crews on the day
after the election:
• Sealed in Envelope # 5
o Spoiled, unused, and unwrapped ballots
o Stubs from issued AccuVote ballots
o Surrendered ( spoiled or not voted) absentee ballots
• Supply tub
• Ballot box
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 18
APPENDIX G
Samples of Checklists Used by the Clerk- Recorder
1. Processing Absentee Voter ( AV) Ballot Applications
2. Absentee Ballot Stuffing Instructions
3. Absentee Processing Instructions Checking Incoming Envelopes
4. Processing Returned Absentee Ballots
5. Supply Box Contents
6. Ballot Statement
7. Canvass Manual
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 19
1. PROCESSING AV BALLOT APPLICATIONS
SORTING
1. Sort applications into two stacks:
SLO county sample ballot application
Other applications
2. For each type of application, sort by permanent absentee status box into two stacks:
Requesting pav status ( checkmark or initial)
Not requesting pav status
Once applications are sorted into stacks as above, perform the following checks on all stacks
1. Duplicates on sample ballot applications . The phrase Ayou are a permanent absentee
voter” or “ you vote by mail@ will be printed in place of the polling place.
a. Check these dups for different mailing addresses - place in separate stack
b. All other dups, place in duplicate box- NOTE: this only applies during the week
of E- 29 to E- 22. After that a duplicate letter is sent to the voter.
2. PO boxes or Mailing address ( M on sample ballot applications) - put these in a separate
stack to verify residence addresses.
3. Other address for mailing ballot ( not residence or mailing address as registered- separate
stack
4. Check signature - make sure signature is same as printed name ( sometimes a husband or
wife signs the wrong form)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 20
5. When the above checks are completed, you will have 4 stacks of ballots to be processed
which can be placed in the corresponding trays:
pav applications to be wanda’d
pav applications to be manually entered
reg applications to be wanda’d
reg applications to be manually entered.
6. You will also have the following stacks for additional processing
PO Boxes or mailing addresses- verify in DIMS that the residence address on
the application is the same as the registration address.
If no- place in CHANGE box.
If yes- mark ok and place in appropriate tray for processing as above.
Duplicates with different mailing address- place in box for reissuance of ballot
with lost ballot statement
Other Address for mailing ballot- place in box for OTHER ADDRESS
Signature Different- Cross off voter’s name and write in name of voter who
signed application. Place in applications to be manually entered.
ENTERING APPLICATIONS
WANDA APPLICATIONS
1. For all applications to be wanda’d, recheck for 1- 4 above and that the residence address
on the application matches printed residence address.
2. Prepare Wanda according to instructions. As each application is scanned, ensure that
the barcode read is the same as on the application. This is very important.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 21
3. Upload the applications to DIMS, per instructions. PAV applications are uploaded first
as Regular applications and then reuploaded as adding permanent status only. Regular
applications are just uploaded once as Regular.
4. Rubber band applications of each type together. Write the date processed on the first
application and place in the appropriate processed application box.
MANUALLY ENTERED APPLICATIONS
1. Enter the absentee ballot request in Dims per instructions
2. Make sure to check that the information on the application matches the registration
information. If it does not, process according to # 6 above.
3. If the application is a duplicate application and the ballot was issued within the last week,
write DUP on the application and place in DUP box.
4. If the application is a duplicate and the ballot was issued more than a week ago, place in
the DUP to be reissued and sent lost ballot box.
5. Once all applications are entered into system, rubber band the PAV apps together and
place in the box labeled PAVs to be processed after Election.
Rubberband the regular applications together and place in Processed Application box.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 22
2. ABSENTEE BALLOT STUFFING INSTRUCTIONS
Ensure all envelopes and ballots in batch are the same:
** precinct**
** ballot type**
** party** ( primary election only)
Count envelopes and ballots to see that they match ( same amount).
Look for Out of Country Addresses
Stuff envelopes with ballots, instructions, and I. D. return envelope
Before putting in mail tray - make sure addresses show through
envelope window
Keep flaps up
First Class envelopes ( ballots going outside San Luis Obispo County)
have to be kept separate from others.
Approximately 250 stuffed ballots fit into a mail trail
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 23
3. ABSENTEE PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS -
CHECKING INCOMING ENVELOPES
A. Check envelopes
1. Check every envelope for a mark in the spoiled box. Take out and set
aside for reissuance .
2. Check every envelope to ensure that it has been signed.
a. If the signature is missing, set it aside to mail out again.
b. If the ballot is signed by someone other than the voter to whom it is
issued or the signature is printed, place in AProblem Signature@
box.
3. Place all envelopes that have been checked upside down in a small mail
tray. Lavender envelopes are placed in a separate tray.
B. Scan Envelopes- It is important that the envelopes are kept in the same order
as they are scanned. When the signatures are being checked, the voter
registration information will appear in the same order as the envelope was
scanned.
1. Scan bar codes on envelopes using the Wanda hand held scanner.
2. Ensure that the bar code that is read by the scanner is the correct bar
code
3. If any bar code cannot be read by the scanner, enter the number by hand.
4. Place scanned envelope tray with Wanda unit on top of it on the cart by
the door.
C. Uploading Scanned Envelopes
1. Connect Wanda to computer with cable.
2. In Dims, select Miscellaneous, Wanda, Wanda Upload
3. Check the Returned AV Ballots and enter the return source ( usually mail)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 24
4. Click on the OK button in DIMS. Instruct the Wanda unit to upload the
report.
5. Once the upload is completed, a report will be generated in DIMS.
a. Print the report and clip it to the front of the tray of signatures.
b. Place the tray of signatures in order on the shelves of the roll down
unit.
c. It is important that the trays are checked in the order that they are
uploaded
6. Delete the file on the wanda unit so it is ready to scan the next batch of
signatures.
D. Check Signatures- see instructions for verification of signatures
PROCESSING OF BALLOTS TO BE RESENT TO VOTERS
A Spoiled Ballots
1. In Dims, suspend the spoiled ballot and reissue a new ballot. Print
labels.
2. Affix labels to new envelopes. Mark in red on bottom left side of the
envelope 2nd ISSUE ( or 3rd issue, if appropriate)
3. Pull ballots and stuff outgoing envelope with instructions.
4. Stamp outgoing envelope in RED with OPEN IMMEDIATELY, RE-PLACEMENT
BALLOT IS ENCLOSED stamp.
5. On spoiled ballot envelope write: Reissued and Date.
6. Place spoiled ballots in Spoiled Ballot Box
B I. D. Envelopes Requiring Signatures
1. Enter challenge code: Return to Voter- no signature in the absentee
module.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 25
2. Highlight signature space
3. Place ID envelope in outgoing envelope.
4. Stamp outgoing envelope in RED with OPEN IMMEDIATELY, ABSENTEE
BALLOT IS BEING RETURNED FOR SIGNATURE ON I. D. ENVELOPE
stamp.
PROCESSING OF BALLOTS WITH PROBLEM SIGNATURES
A If the ballot has been signed by someone other than the voter
1. Verify that the person who signed the ballot has requested an absentee
ballot. Often, spouses or parents/ children will sign the wrong ballot.
2. If the person who signed has been issued a ballot, attempt to contact the
voters by phone. Inform them that the other voter should vote and sign
the other ballot. Instruct them to cross off the name of the voter on the
envelope.
3.. Make a note on the envelope and place back in the problem signature
box.
4. If you cannot contact the person, make a note and place back in the
problem signature box. Sometimes the voter will contact us themselves
or the signature on the other envelope will be rejected also and the
envelopes can be matched up and verified.
5. If the person who signed the envelope has not requested an absentee
ballot, process above as though there is no signature.
B. If the signature on the envelope is printed.
1. Verify that the voter registration signature is not printed. If it is printed
and it matches the signature on the ballot, verify manually in DIMS
2. If the voter registration signature not printed, return ballot with letter
instructing the voter that they must SIGN the ballot using their normal
signature.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 26
3. Follow procedure above for no signature on ballot.
C. If signed by a someone other than the voter as a power of attorney
1. Attempt to contact the voter and explain that the voter must make a mark
which can be witnessed by another person but the POA is not acceptable.
2. If the voter cannot be contacted, return the ballot with a letter explaining
the witness procedure.
3. Follow procedure for no signature on the ballot.
4. PROCESSING RETURNED ABSENTEE BALLOTS
Verifying Signatures: See instructions for handling errors also
1. Select first envelope in tray and find absentee voter in DIMS ( yellow
envelope on tool bar).
2. Remove envelopes four at a time to work with
3. Click on View Batch to View 4 Signatures per Screen
4. Verify Signatures and Addresses.
a. The residence address that the voter wrote must match the
residence address on the screen.
b. If residence and signature are correct make a red check mark to
the right of the signature.
5. When you get to end of batch, click OK and then cancel.
6. A report will display that indicates how many challenged ballots you have.
Verify that the number is correct ( should only be Signature Problem
ballots)
a. If the number on the report indicates less challenged ballots than
you have, verify that all the challenged ballots were given a
challenge code.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 27
b. If the number on the report indicates more challenged ballots than
you have, the batch must be reviewed to find the challenged ballot
so it is not opened.
7. With the signatures facing you, mark the tops and left sides of envelopes
with a pink highlighter. Mark batch report as validated, initial it and place it
on top of the envelopes. If there are problems, contact a Supervisor.
ERRORS WHEN CHECKING SIGNATURES AND WHAT TO DO WITH THEM.
The report that is attached to each batch will list errors that you will encounter as you
process the tray of ballots. You will also encounter other errors ( such as a missed
envelope, residence address wrong and signature problems) that are not identified on
the report. Below you will find the solution to each of the errors you may encounter.
When a ballot needs to be challenged, complete the proper code as you work through
the batch. For the other corrections, it will work out best to do all of your corrections at
the end of the batch. Until you are familiar with the system, work with a supervisor to
correct the problems. All corrections must be done before putting the tray away and
signing off on the report.
ERRORS FOUND ON THE REPORT
NO MVF- This indicates that the AVID number that was read by the bar code scanner is
not a valid #. You will most likely have an envelope in this place in the batch that has
not been scanned and there will be a blank record on the screen.
ACTION: Set envelope aside to hand verify at the end of the batch.
If you do not have an envelope without a matching record, it means that the error was
caught when scanning and the envelope was rescanned. No action required if this
happens.
PREVIOUSLY CHALLENGED OR SUSPENDED- This indicates that the ballot that
was scanned was suspended and a second ballot was issued to the voter.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 28
ACTION: Write on the ballot SUSPENDED and set aside to place in the box for
Suspended ballots to be checked later. We will wait until after the election to ensure
that the 2nd ballot was not returned before processing.
DUPLICATE FROM WAND- This means that the ballot was scanned twice. No action
required.
DUPLICATE FROM AV ELECTION TABLE- This means that the voter already had
their envelope scanned and uploaded.
ACTION: Write DUPE? On the envelope and set aside for a supervisor to research.
ERRORS NOT FOUND ON THE REPORT
THE NAME IN THE BATCH DOES NOT MATCH THE NAME ON THE ENVELOPE:
Most likely, the bar code was misread when it was scanned, but instead of it being an
invalid #, the number read matches another voter.
ACTION: Write the name, AVID# of the voter on the screen, and “ scanned no
envelope” on the AV return report so that voter’s record can be corrected. Place the
mis- scanned envelope into the stack to be hand verified at the end of the batch.
THE RESIDENCE ADDRESS DOES NOT MATCH-ACTION:
Verify and red mark the signature. Write Res ? on the envelope flap and
place in the Residence Address box. DO NOT challenge the ballot.
THE SIGNATURE DOES NOT MATCH-ACTION:
Insert the “ Signature Miscompares” code in the challenge field. Write SIG?
on the envelope flap and place in the Problem Signature box.
A SIGNATURE DOES NOT EXIST IN DIMS FOR THE VOTER
ACTION: Insert the “ No Signature” code in the challenge field. Write NO SIG on the
envelope flap and place in the Problem Signature box.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 29
SIGNATURE IN NEW NAME: VOTER HAS CHANGED NAME BUT NOT RE-REGISTERED
ACTIONS: Insert “ Signature Miscompares” code in the challenge field. Write Sig? on
the envelope flap and place in the Problem Signature box.
SIGNATURE IS PRINTED AND DOES NOT MATCH
ACTION: Insert the “ Printed Signature” code in the challenge field. Write PRINTED
SIG on the envelope flap and give to a supervisor so the ballot can be returned to the
voter.
ANOTHER PERSON HAS SIGNED THE BALLOT
ACTION: Insert the “ Signature Miscompares” code in the challenge field. Write SIG?
on the envelope flap and give to a Supervisor for research.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 30
5. Supply Box Contents
Loose in Tub:
Warehouse Pct. Inspector
Check Check
□ □ Magnifying Glass Sheet
□ □ Ruler
□ □ “ I Voted” Stickers
□ □ Voter Registration Forms ( Approx. 20)
□ □ Plastic “ Vote Here” Signs with Wire Frames
□ □ Black or Canvas Ballot Bag
□ □ AccuVote Ballots
□ □ AutoMARK Ballots and Ballot Statement ( Only in Accuvote Inspector’s tub)
□ □ Roster Index
□ □ 2 Inside- Outside Indexes
□ □ Bag # 1 and instruction sheet
□ □ Provisional Ballots
□ □ Provisional Roster
□ □ Provisional Envelopes
□ □ Provisional Ballot Statement
□ □ Provisional Voter Manual
□ □ Provisional Voter Information ( pink pad)
□ □ Envelope # 2
□ □ Envelope # 3
□ □ Envelope # 4
□ □ Envelope # 5
□ □ Green Absentee Envelopes with Instructions
□ □ Street Guide
□ □ American Flag
□ □ Plastic Bag with Voting Pens with String and Clothes Pins to Clip to Booths
□ □ Secrecy Sleeves for all ballots ( we had to improvise for the 18” long ballot)
□ □ Plastic Bag with Stationery Supplies
□ □ Precinct Worker Training CD
□ □ Precinct Worker Badges
□ □ Precinct Worker Pins
□ □ Unofficial Results Sign for Second Copy of AccuVote Tape
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 31
Manila Envelope:
Warehouse Pct. Inspector
Check Check
□ □ Outside Index Tally System
□ □ “ Challenged Voter Procedure” Poster
□ □ “ Vote Here” Signs
□ □ “ Polling Place” Signs
□ □ “ 100 Feet” Signs
□ □ “ Please State Name and Address” sign
□ □ 2 Voter Rights Posters to Be Posted Inside and Outside the Poll Location
□ □ Voting Instructions - Post One in Each Booth
□ □ Tampering is a Felony sign
□ □ Voter Information Guides ( state pamphlet) & Sample Ballot Booklets ( local
information)
□ □ Demonstration Ballots
□ □ Ballot Statement - Certificate of Packaging & Sealing
□ □ Tamper Proof Seals for Containers of Voted Ballots
□ □ Tamper Proof Seals for Envelope # 5
□ □ Postage Paid Return Envelope for White Copy of Ballot Statement
□ □ Receipt for Precinct Supplies ( Take to Return Center)
□ □ Payroll
□ □ Precinct Workers OR Inspectors’ Manual
□ □ Election Officer Digest
□ □ Job Description Sheets
□ □ Poll Watcher Information
□ □ Emergency Procedures
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 32
6. BALLOT STATEMENT
PUT yellow copy in Envelope # 4
MAIL white
copy in envelope
FOR THE CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 7, 2006
( remember to leave more space for labels for pct number)
CON ______ POLL BALLOT STATEMENT
( Elections Code § 14405; 14421; 15271; 15275)
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF POLL BALLOTS RECEIVED FROM THE BALLOT QUANTITIES WORKSHEET
LINE 1 ________
2. TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTERS WHO SIGNED ROSTER ( INCLUDING INACTIVE) LINE 2 ________
3. NUMBER OF VOTED BALLOTS:
a. NUMBER OF VOTED BALLOTS ON THE
ACCU- VOTE TAPE FOR YOUR PRECINCT LINE 3a __________
b. NUMBER OF NON- PROCESSED BALLOTS
NOT FED THROUGH THE AccuVote ( IF ANY)
( Ballots have been voted; machine
would not accept them) LINE 3b __________
c. NUMBER OF AUTOMARK BALLOTS ( IF ANY) LINE 3c __________
TOTAL OF LINE 3a, 3b, AND 3c TOTAL LINE 3 ________
4. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NUMBER ON LINE 2
( signatures on roster) AND ON LINE 3 ( voted ballots), IF ANY LINE 4 ________
5. NUMBER OF SPOILED BALLOTS
( Ballots issued to a voter but returned spoiled) LINE 5 ________
6. NUMBER OF UNUSED POLL BALLOTS - SEE BALLOT QUANTITY WORKSHEET LINE 6 _________
Reasons for differences, if any, between lines 2 and 3, as entered on Line 4.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 33
WE THE UNDERSIGNED PRECINCT BOARD MEMBERS, HEREBY CERTIFY
that the above accounting of official ballots is true and correct
CERTIFICATE OF PACKAGING AND SEALING
We further certify that the following containers were sealed ( if necessary) in our presence, and
that we have enclosed in the containers their respective appropriate listed contents.
Take the following items to the Regional Central Collection Center.
BAG # 1 VOTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS and VOTED PROVISIONAL BALLOTS
( if any)
Canvas Bag Containing:
ENVELOPE # 2 SEE ENVELOPE FOR LIST OF CONTENTS
ENVELOPE # 3 WRITE- IN BALLOTS ( if any)
ENVELOPE # 4 SEE ENVELOPE FOR LIST OF CONTENTS
CONTAINER FOR Voted ballots from AccuVote unit
VOTED BALLOTS ( INDICATE NUMBER OF BOXES RETURNED ON SEAL)
Leave the following items at the polling place.
ENVELOPE # 5 SEE ENVELOPE FOR LIST OF CONTENTS
Date: Time:
Inspector Clerk
Clerk Clerk
Clerk Clerk
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 34
7. CANVASS MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. General Information 2- 35
II. Starting the Canvass 2- 36
III. Verification of Returned Items 2- 38
IV. Roster Reconciliation 2- 39
V. Ballot Processing 2- 41
VI. 1% Manual Hand Tally 2- 43
VII. Audit Reports 2- 44
VIII. Certificates 2- 44
IX. Statement of Vote 2- 44
X. Destruction of Unused Ballots 2- 45
XI. Completion of Election 2- 45
XII. Appendix- Forms 2- 46
Ballot Count Log # 2
Envelope # 3 Log
Envelope # 4 Log
Roster Balance Sheet
Roster Checklist- Primary Election
Roster Checklist- General Election
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 35
I. GENERAL INFORMATION:
The Official Canvass shall commence no later than the Thursday following the election
and shall be open to the public. The canvass shall be continued daily, Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays excepted, for not less than six hours each day until completed.
( EC' 15301)
The official canvass shall include, but not be limited to, the following tasks ( EC' 15302):
An inspection of materials and supplies returned by the poll workers.
A reconciliation of the number of signatures on the roster with the number of ballots
recorded on the ballot statement.
In the event of a discrepancy in the reconciliation, the number of ballots received from
each polling place shall be reconciled with the number of ballots cast, as indicated on
the ballot statement.
A reconciliation of the number of ballots counted, spoiled, canceled or invalidated due to
identifying marks, overvotes, or as otherwise provided by statute, with the number of
votes recorded, including absentee and provisional ballots, by the vote counting system.
Processing and counting any valid absentee and provisional ballots not included in the
semifinal- official canvass.
Counting any valid write- in votes.
Duplicating and counting any damaged ballots, if necessary.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 36
A manual tally of votes cast in one percent of the precincts and for each race not
included in the initial group of precincts, the counting of one additional precinct. The
hand count shall apply only to the race not previously counted.
9. Reporting final results to the governing board and the Secretary of State, as
required.
II. STARTING THE CANVASS:
In order to keep the canvass moving in a smooth progression, tasks will be done in the
following order:
E+ 1
1 team ( 2 employees) will begin working on envelopes and preparing rosters
1 team ( 2 employees) complete election night processing of absentee and provisional
ballots
1 team ( 2-? Employees) will scan and check signatures on absentee ballots
E+ 2
All employees will open and process absentee ballots in preparation for counting
E+ 3
Employees as needed on opening and processing
1 team ( 2- 5 Employees) begin scanning roster signatures
E+ 6- E+ 14-
1 team ( 2- 4 employees) balance rosters
1 team ( 2- 4 employees) process provisionals ( after all rosters scanned)
1 team ( 1- 2 employees) finish absentees that need additional processing ( check voting
history, re check signatures, etc.)
1 team ( 2- 4 employees) count ballots as necessary
1 team ( 1- 4 employees) review write in ballots and manual tally valid write- in votes as
required.
E+ 13- E+ 16
Teams as needed - Manual Tally of precincts and absentees
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 37
Supplies Needed:
1. Canvass Packet
a. Ballot Count Log # 2 - Non- Processed Ballots
b. Envelope # 3 Log- Write- Ins
c. Envelope # 4 Log- Rosters, etc.
i. Provisional Ballot Log for Inspector Evaluations
d. Red Pens
e. Seals for ballot containers
f. Rubber Bands
g. Tally Sheets for Write- In= s
h. Boxes for VRCs, Rosters, Accuvote tapes, write in ballots, non-processed
ballots
i. Tubs for envelopes and miscellaneous items.
j. Roster Labels
2. Absentee Ballots turned in at the polls and Provisional Ballots ( already in
trays from election night).
3. Envelope # 2 - Non- Processed Ballots, VRC= s
4. Envelope # 3 - Write- Ins
5. Envelope # 4- Roster, Outside Indexes, Payroll, AccuVote Tape ( if
applicable), Yellow copy of Ballot Statement, Supply List
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 38
III. VERIFICATION OF RETURNED ITEMS
If any of the items required to be returned are missing, notify a supervisor immediately
so they can be tracked down.
Envelope # 4
Remove the Roster, Accuvote Tape ( if AccuVote was assigned to that precinct),
Outside Indexes, Ballot Statement and Payroll and check them off on the Envelope # 4
Log. Put any miscellaneous items with Payroll sheet.
1. Affix label to front cover ( not binder of roster) and put Rosters in Boxes in
Con Precinct order - one box for 100' s, one for 200' s, etc.
2. Put Payroll Sheets in Con Precinct order and give to Pam. If Envelope # 4
included items not called for, paper clip them to the payroll sheets.
3. Put the yellow copy of the Ballot Statements in Con Precinct Order.
4. Fold the Accuvote Tapes so the Vote Center shows and place them in
Vote Center # order.
5. Put Outside Indexes into boxes.
Envelope # 2:
1. Enter the number of Non- Processed Ballots ( these ballots were not
counted election night) as noted on the envelope on the Ballot Count Log
# 2 under APoll Count@.
2. Count the number of Non- Processed Ballots - enter total on Ballot Count
Log # 2 under AOffice Count@.
3. Remove VRC= s, if any, and place in VRC box.
4. Place ballots in con # order in box.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 39
Envelope # 3:
1. Enter the number of Write- In Ballots as noted on Envelope # 3 under
AWrite- In Poll Count@ on the Envelope # 3 Log.
2. Open Envelope # 3 - count the number of Write- In Ballots - enter the total
on the Envelope # 3 Log under AWrite- In Office Count@.
3. Rubber band or paper clip the Write- In Ballots from each Con Precinct and
put in tub in precinct order. ( These ballots were counted election night -
write- in votes, if valid, must be hand tallied)
IV. ROSTER RECONCILIATION
Roster Preparation:
1. Using the poll ballot statements, complete the Roster balance spreadsheet
in Excel- just the columns that pertain to the Poll Ballot Statement.
( total issued, # voted, # Automarks, # non- processed, # spoiled and #
unused.)
2. Wanda scan each signature on each page ( including Inactives). Keep a
close eye on the scanner display to ensure that the barcode scanned is
the number on the display. If the number does not match the barcode, let
a supervisor know so it can be corrected.
3. For the primary election, prior to scanning signatures, use a highlighter to
identify the DS voters that have voted. These voters will have to be
scanned separately according to their cross- over party voting, if
applicable.
4. Upload to DIMS. Print Wanda Report.
5. Note on the Roster label that the signatures have been scanned.
6. Place poll ballot statement and wanda report in the inside pocket of the
roster binder.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 40
Roster Balancing:
1. You will need the following for balancing the roster: 1 blank roster
balance sheet; Poll Ballot statement; Wanda Report; Election Summary
Report and Accuvote tape.
2. Complete roster balance sheet according to instructions.
3. If roster balances,
a. mark precinct # off master balancing list
b. staple roster balance sheet, poll ballot statement, wanda report and
summary report together ( in that order) and place in “ balanced” box
c. Note on roster label that it is balanced.
d. Place roster back in roster box.
4. If roster does not balance
a. Leave all materials together and place in not balanced stack.
5. Follow instructions for roster reconciliation for all rosters that do not
balance on 1st try.
6. Any rosters that cannot be balanced by 2nd try must be reviewed and
signed off by County Clerk- Recorder or Assistant County Clerk- Recorder
Ballot Statement Reconciliation:
1. Complete Roster Balance spreadsheet – columns for accuvote report, #
counted nonprocessed and # of signatures.
2. Print spreadsheet and store with poll ballot statements.
Roster Checklist - Check the roster for the following and complete checklist:
1. The Declaration on the inside front cover has been signed by each
precinct worker and witnessed.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 41
2. The AccuVote Tape has been signed at the opening and at the closing of
the polls.
3. Absentees have been hand marked in the roster for those voters on the
Late Absentee List. Mark a red check & your initials on the list to show
this has been done.
4. Certificate AA@ on the inside back cover has been completed and signed
by each precinct worker.
5. Ballot Statement is completed correctly and signed by each precinct
worker.
6. Voter Tally matches the number of signatures in the roster including
provisional and inactive voters.
7.
V. BALLOT PROCESSING
Provisional Ballots:
1. All rosters must have signature scanning completed prior to beginning this
process.
2. Process all envelopes from one precinct together.
3. Once processed,
a. rubber band ballots to be counted together and place in COUNT
tray.
b. Rubber band rejected ballot together and place in DON’T COUNT
tray.
4. Complete Inspector Evaluations
5. Envelopes that are marked Don= t Count will be double checked by
someone other than the person who made the original determination.
6. Once provisional ballot process is completed, the ballots will be opened by
the Opening Board. Provisional ballots are counted on central count
units into the poll ballot buckets.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 42
Write Ins:
1. Check the number of write- in= s for qualified write ins turned in election
night in Envelope # 3 against the Summary Report from election night to
make sure the precinct put all the write- in ballots into Envelope # 3. If there
is a difference check to see if ballots with write- in votes are with the voted
ballots from that precinct. If all write in ballots cannot be found notify a
supervisor.
2. Check the write in ballots from the absentee processing board to
determine if there are any valid votes for qualified write in candidates.
These ballots have not yet been counted.
3. If there are qualified write- in= s from the absentee ballots and/ or the
precinct ballots the Write- In Ballot Board will be set up.
4. Poll ballots can be put back in the box of voted ballots for that precinct.
5. Absentee ballots should be batched and logged to go to the Counting
Board.
Non- Processed:
1. These ballots will be counted only if after balancing we find that we need
them to balance the roster, because you can= t be 100% sure they
haven= t already been counted at the polls.
2. If it is determined that they should be counted, note on non- processed log
and set aside for duplication/ enhancement board.
Duplicating/ Enhancing:
1. Three people to a board.
2. Use the Ballot Duplication Packet which contains:
a. Instructions
b. Pens - Red Pen, Blue & Black Markers
c. Duplicate and Void Stamps
d. Correction Tape
e. Envelopes/ Boxes for Void Ballots
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 43
f. Ballot Duplication/ Enhancement Log
g. Certificate of Ballot Duplication/ Enhancement Board
h. Blue Highlighter
3. Follow the Ballot Duplication Board Instructions.
VI. 1% MANUAL HAND TALLY
Poll Ballots:
1. Every race in one percent of the precincts ( 2 precincts) , chosen at
random by the elections official, shall be hand counted.
2. In addition to the one percent count, for each race not included in the
initial two precincts, count one additional precinct. This shall only apply to
races not previously counted.
3. The additional precincts may be chosen at the discretion of the elections
official.
4. Follow the procedures for the manual tally.
Central Count:
1. Determine by random which batches will be hand tallied. ( 1% of the total
absentee ballots counted- usually 3 absentee batches and 2 mail ballot
precinct batches)
2. Make backup of database and delete all batches except those to be hand
tallied.
3. Prepare a database for each batch and delete all but that one batch.
4. Print summary reports for each batch of ballot.
5. Follow procedures for manual tally
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 44
VII. AUDIT REPORTS
1. Print Audit Log from Gems
2. Print Audit Reports from every memory card.
3. Review for any potential discrepancies.
4. Retain Audit logs and reports with other certification materials.
VIII. CERTIFICATES:
1. Results of Canvass of All Votes Cast
a. Send certificate and copy of Statement of Vote pages to other counties
with shared districts.
2. Results of Canvass for each entity with a measure or candidate race.
a. Send certificate and copy of Statement of Vote pages to each entity.
3. Destruction of Unused Ballots
a. Attach to list of unused ballots and put in main file.
4. Enter Write- In Results in Gems
5. Certificates for elected and appointed in- lieu candidates.
6. Letter to Board of Supervisors to Declare Results.
7. Letter to Board of Supervisors to Make Appointments In- Lieu of Election.
8. Send Statement of Vote and Supplemental Statement of Vote to SOS.
IX. STATEMENT OF VOTE:
1. Print Statement of Vote for All Ballots, Poll Ballots and Absentee Ballots after all
ballots have been counted, rosters balanced, hand count is finished and write ins
have been entered.
2. Number each page at the bottom right corner with numbering stamp.
3. Include the following in the Statement of Vote for All Ballots:
a. Table of Contents
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 45
b. Certificate of County Clerk - Results of Canvass of All Votes Cast
c. Certificate of County Clerk - Results of Write- In Votes Cast
d. Certificates to the Result of the Canvass for each entity with a contest on
the ballot.
e. Official Final Summary Report.
f. Consolidated Precinct List.
g. Statement of Vote or summary report from other counties with shared
districts.
h. Send Statement of Vote to Reprographics for copying and binding
X. DESTRUCTION OF UNUSED BALLOTS:
1. Make a list of ballot numbers for each ballot type and party, if applicable, for all
absentee and mail ballots not used.
2. Seal ballots in boxes labeled.
XI. COMPLETION OF ELECTION:
1. Precinct Officer Evaluations ( not required by law)
2. Verification of signatures scanned against roster to ensure correct voter history.
3. Prepare packet of information for files.
a. Sample Ballots
b. State Pamphlet and Addendum ( if applicable)
c. Easy Reader Voter Guide
d. Candidate/ Media/ Precinct Worker Booklets
e. Final Precinct Summary
f. Candidate List & Successful Candidate List
g. List of contests and ballot type cross reference
4. Package up materials to go to camp.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 46
BALLOT COUNT LOG # 2
ENVELOPE
NUMBER 2 - NON PROCESSED
DETERMINATION
COMMENTS
CON
PRECINCT
PCT
COUNT
OFFICE
COUNT
COUNT
NO
COUNT
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 47
ENVELOPE # 3 LOG
CON
WRITE- IN
POLL
COUNT
WRITE- IN
OFFICE
COUNT
WRITE INS
VERIFIED?
CHECK FOR
WRITE INS
ALL WRITE- INS
ACCOUNTED
FOR
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 48
ENVELOPE # 4 LOG
CON PCT
ROSTER
INDEX
ACCU -
VOTE TAPE
OUTSIDE
INDEXES
BALLOT
STMT
SUPPLY
LIST
PAYROLL -
LIST OTHER
ITEMS
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 49
ROSTER BALANCE SHEET
CONSOLIDATED PRECINCT #
BALANCED: INITIALS
COUNT BALLOTS IN BOX? RECOUNT BALLOTS?
Step 1: Determine # of voters who were issued ballots
# of signatures from Wanda report
Adjustments: Write Voter’s name and adjustment ( ie. Remove or
add)
Total # of voters issued ballots
Step 2: Determine # of ballots issued/ voted
# of ballots from precinct summary report
# of non- processed ballots determined to be valid to count (+)
Adjustments:
Total # of ballots issued/ voted
Comments:
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 50
ROSTER CHECKLIST - PRIMARY ELECTION
CON
PCT
INSIDE
FRONT
COVER
SIGNED
BY ALL
INSIDE
FRONT
COVER SIGS
WITNESSED
ACCUVOTE
TAPE SIGNED
AT BEGINNING
AND END
A= S
MARKED
LATE
REG= S
ADDED TO
ROSTER
PARTY
INDICATED
ON NON-DECLARED
= S
TALLY #= S
MATCH # OF
SIGNATURES
INACTIVE
VOTERS
SIGNED
ROSTER
INSIDE BACK
COVER
CERTIFICATE
AA@ SIGNED
BY ALL
BALLOT
STATEMENT
COMPLETED
CORRECTLY
ROSTER
BALANCES
COMMENTS
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 2- 51
ROSTER CHECKLIST - GENERAL ELECTION
CON PCT
INSIDE
FRONT
COVER
SIGNED
INSIDE FRONT
COVER SIGS
WITNESSED
A= S
MARKED
LATE REG
PAGE ADDED
TO ROSTER
TALLY #= S
MATCH # OF
SIGNATURES
INACTIVE
VOTERS SIGNED
ROSTER & GIVEN
TALLY NUMBER
INSIDE BACK
COVER
CERTIFICATE
AA@ SIGNED
BALLOT
STATEMENT
COMPLETED
CORRECTLY
ROSTER
BALANCES
COMMENTS
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 1
3. SLO PUBLIC DEFENDERS
INTRODUCTION
The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury investigated a complaint lodged against the county’s public
defenders. The complainant believed she had not been well served by her public defenders. Assigned
a series of different attorneys to represent her, she believed an agreed- upon arrangement worked out by
one of those attorneys, with concurrence of the judge and district attorney, was not honored when a
subsequent attorney took over the case.
San Luis Obispo County does not have a public defenders’ office. The county has a contract with the
law offices of Maguire & Ashbaugh ( the firm) for this service. This contract is described in more
detail below.
METHOD
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed two attorneys, both sub- contracting public defenders who
worked on the complainant’s case. One interview was in person and the other was conducted by
conference call. In addition, a partner in the firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh made a presentation to
members of the Grand Jury and answered questions related to the complainant’s case. It should be
noted that the complainant had previously waived her right to attorney- client privilege. Members of
the Grand Jury interviewed the presiding Judge regarding his opinions of the performance of public
defenders in San Luis Obispo County and, finally, members of the Grand Jury examined the Minute
Order ( defined below) relating to the complainant’s case, and determined the final outcome of her
sentencing by contacting the Sheriff’s office.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 2
NARRATIVE
In large counties, such as Los Angeles, the public defender is an elected official and the county
maintains an office of the public defender that employs its own attorneys. In smaller counties,
including San Luis Obispo, the county contracts for public defender services. The contract in our
county is a flat rate three- year contract that has been held by the firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh since
1980. The current contract is for approximately eight million dollars for the three years ending June
30, 2007. The contract requires the firm to provide attorneys for each criminal courtroom in San Luis
Obispo County every working day. The contract further states that they cannot take on any additional
criminal cases other than public defender work. It also requires the firm to provide the County with
monthly statistics accounting for the number of hours spent working on assigned cases and the number
of their appearances in court. Last year the firm handled approximately 8,500 cases, mostly
misdemeanors, as part of their contract obligation. In addition to adult criminal court, the firm is
required to represent defendants in juvenile court, the mentally ill, and certain conservatorship cases.
The firm sub- contracts part of its work to eighteen other attorneys and hires four investigators, three
paralegals, and clerical staff to assist the attorneys.
In San Luis Obispo the courts have adopted a direct calendar system, which means a case is directed to
one judge and remains with that judge throughout the process. Also, the courts, misdemeanor and
felony, are divided alphabetically further ensuring that defendants see the same judge, public defender,
and district attorney throughout the process. Hence, repeat offenders tend to see the same parties.
Defendants do, however, have a legal right to change judges one time only. The public defenders
normally see a case from beginning to end. The exception is when a case originates in North or South
County and the defendant wants a trial. All trials are held in San Luis Obispo. In these cases one
public defender begins the case and then transfers it to another public defender in San Luis Obispo. In
rare exceptions, cases may be handled by more than one public defender because of illness, job
turnover, or other such circumstances. Most of the attorneys working under sub- contract for Maguire
& Ashbaugh have done so for many years. Last year, however, an opening occurred and was filled by
a succession of new attorneys, two of whom stayed only a short time before transferring to positions in
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 3
other counties. Therefore, this complainant in this matter was represented by four different public
defenders.
Her case originated in North County and was transferred to San Luis Obispo; she was subsequently
represented by both of the new sub- contract public defenders who stayed only a short while. It appears
hers was an unusual situation for San Luis Obispo County. While it is often the norm in larger
counties, where cases are tracked using a master calendar system, and different attorneys represent
defendants for different purposes ( e. g., arraignment, trial, sentencing), it is unusual in this county for
defendants to be assigned a succession of public defenders.
When we interviewed the sub- contracting attorney who represented the complainant during sentencing,
he showed us her file but was unclear about the meaning of some of the notations made on the file’s
jacket by one of the previous attorneys. When we inquired about the agreement reached by the
previous attorney with the judge and district attorney, he also appeared unclear about the previous
agreement and began looking for the Minute Order, which he was unable to find. He then indicated
that the Minute Order was not in the complainant’s file. He said that he was also a bit unsure why it
was not included, but assured us that its absence was not a serious issue because the attorney could
always go to the court and obtain another copy. We subsequently obtained a copy of this Minute
Order from the court. A Minute Order is the courtroom clerk’s written minutes of court proceedings.
Usually a copy is made available immediately to both the district attorney and the public defender
working on the case.
During our interview with the firm’s partner, the Grand Jury inquired about training of new sub-contracting
attorneys. He informed us that new attorneys work with more experienced public
defenders for a month to obtain on- the- job training. He also emphasized that the firm “ strongly
encourages attorneys to take and keep notes in their files.” When attorneys apply to become
subcontractors with the firm they are expected to meet certain standards, for example: law school
graduation and California State Bar membership. When they are interviewed, their past experiences as
attorneys are determining factors in whether or not they are accepted as subcontractors. He also told us
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 4
that, typically, when a case is transferred from one attorney to another, there is communication
between the two.
In further discussion with the firm’s partner along with the presiding Judge, the Grand Jury learned
that the complainant may have misunderstood the nature of the original agreement among the public
defender, judge, and district attorney. State law and the nature of her case left the judge with very
little discretion; therefore, the complainant’s interpretation would not have been legally feasible.
FINDINGS
1. Based upon the Grand Jury’s interviews with two sub- contracting public defenders, a partner
from the firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh, and the presiding judge, we believe the county’s public
defender contract with the law firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh is serving the needs of San Luis
Obispo County well.
2. The use of multiple public defenders in the complainant’s case appears to be an aberration, not
a pattern. The bulk of the defendant’s complaint appears to be based on a misunderstanding,
compounded by a succession of public defenders handling her case.
3. Training of new sub- contracting public defenders needs strengthening, especially with regard to
expectations/ requirements concerning taking and filing good notes and the placement of
Minute Orders in files.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. New sub- contracting public defenders should be given training that incorporates an operations
manual or check- list that includes required notes for each case. ( Finding 3).
2. Minute Orders should be maintained in files. ( Finding 3).
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 3- 5
REQUIRED RESPONSES
1. San Luis Obispo County Public Defenders ( The law firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh) ( Finding 3
and Recommendations 1 and 2).
2. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 1
4. COUNTY CONTRACTS: DO WE GET WHAT WE PAY FOR?
INTRODUCTION
San Luis Obispo County departments issue hundreds of contracts every year. These contracts vary
considerably in value and complexity and are issued for a variety of purposes. While the purposes of
individual contracts may differ, their basic intent is to ensure a clearly documented process detailing
how funds are dispersed as well as services or goods that are received by the County.
To ensure that citizens can be confident that County funds are properly managed, it is especially
critical that County’s staff oversee and document each step of the contracting process.
ORIGIN / PURPOSE
The Grand Jury received several citizen complaints that in some aspects involved County contracts.
While the contracts themselves may not have been the primary issue raised by the complainants, the
review of these complaints required a thorough evaluation of the related contract documents. As part
of this evaluation, the Grand Jury identified several common procedural questions relating to how
these contracts were managed after they were executed. The Grand Jury decided that it would be
appropriate to initiate a separate investigation to review the County’s procedures for post- award
contract management. The goal of this investigation was to determine whether the County has
adequate procedures in place to ensure that potential problems causing contract mismanagement do not
occur.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 2
METHOD
As part of its investigation, Grand Jurors did the following:
• Reviewed contract documents relating to complaints received by the Grand Jury.
• Interviewed one of the contractors.
• Interviewed departments that initiate the majority of County contracts.
• Interviewed the County Auditor- Controller and Administration staff.
• Reviewed contract management reference materials supplied by County departments.
BACKGROUND
As mentioned in the introduction, San Luis Obispo County departments issue hundreds of contracts
every year for a variety of purposes:
• Construction of County infrastructure.
• Procuring supplies and materials.
• Rental or lease of County property or facilities.
• Obtaining professional services ( consulting, service outsourcing, etc.).
Though the purpose of these contracts may differ, the basic steps involved with their creation,
execution and post- award management are similar:
• Develop a clear description of the contract’s purpose.
• Write contract provisions that detail the requirements necessary to accomplish the purpose, and
develop an estimate of the contract’s total costs/ revenues.
• Ensure that all contract provisions are legal and binding ( review by County Counsel or use of
standardized provisions).
• Advertise contract to ensure that all qualified parties have an equal chance to compete.
• Provide an objective evaluation process to identify the most qualified contractor and ensure that
total costs/ revenues are within acceptable limits of the original estimate.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 3
• Award and execute the contract.
• Monitor contract progress to ensure that milestones, deliverables and other contract provisions
are accomplished as required.
As can be seen from the above list, a good deal of the work in managing contracts takes place prior to
award and execution. Most scrutiny of contracts typically involves either the development of contract
documents or the evaluation and selection of potential contractors. Usually what happens after a
contract is awarded does not come to the public’s attention unless there is a major error by the
contractor or a substantial increase to the overall cost of the contract. Although hundreds of contracts
that are issued and completed without incident, what guarantees do the public have that all contract
provisions are actually met?
NARRATIVE
The first step in this investigation was to look at the County’s standard procedures relating to post-award
contract management. Through interviews with the County Administrative and Auditor-
Controller staff, the Grand Jury learned that there are no formal County- Wide procedures in place for
contract management. The Grand Jury was told that each department is responsible for managing
those contracts for which it has lead responsibility. As a result, it is up to each department to
determine how contracts are monitored after award.
The Grand Jury then interviewed managers from two County departments that annually issue a large
number of contracts. Neither of those departments has a set of published standard operating
procedures that address how contracts should be monitored once they are issued. This did not present
a problem for large construction contracts which inherently have a more formalized procedure. These
contracts also have assigned project managers who monitor the phases of construction and are
responsible to ensure that their contracts are on- time and within budget. However, this level of
detailed oversight is not provided for the large number of smaller contracts.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 4
In order to monitor these smaller contracts, the Grand Jury found that several managers have their own
tracking tools. As an example, one department manager developed a database in Microsoft Access to
track contract parameters and another manager in the same department created a Microsoft Word
document that is used as a “ tickler” file ( a collection of notes and dates used as a reminder that follow-up
actions are required in the future).
While these ad hoc tracking systems may currently provide individual managers with the data they
need, they are not designed as high- reliability systems and lack comprehensive documentation. Should
key managers suddenly leave, staff that would have to assume their duties may not be aware of
systems used by their predecessors, or they may not know how to access or operate them. This
potential loss of tracking information could result in inadequate monitoring of contracts or a lack of
consistency in the way they are managed.
That each department is responsible for issuing and monitoring its own contracts creates another
potential for inadequate contact management. Departments like General Services and Public Works
issue a large number of contracts while other sections of the County, such as the Auditor- Controller’s
Office, issue contracts infrequently. A department that is more familiar with contract administration is
less likely to make errors in managing various stages of a contract and is more likely to proactively
identify when a contractor is having problems meeting their contractual obligations.
The Grand Jury did not find that the County has any procedure for the regular review of contacts once
their termination dates have been reached. A “ post mortem” review of this type would appear to have
several advantages, including:
• Verifying that all contract provisions had been met.
• Verifying that all contract milestones had been completed on time.
• Determining whether any follow- up with the contactor was required.
• Evaluating the effectiveness of the contact management procedures used, and determining
whether any changes should be made to the adopted best practices.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 5
CONCLUSIONS
In general, the Grand Jury found that current County staff is dedicated to ensuring that the citizens of
San Luis Obispo County get what they pay for. However, it appears that current, existing standards
and procedures, particularly for post- award contract management, may become inadequate as the
County continues to grow, and more employees become involved in the administration of increasingly
complex County contracts.
FINDINGS
1. There appears to be a lack of formal, published standard operating procedures for contract
administration. An employee faced with a question relating to a particular aspect of managing
contracts may have to seek out other employees who have some familiarity with the problem.
2. Managers in major contracting departments are dedicated and are doing a good job of ensuring
that contractors are meeting their obligations. However, tools they currently in use to track
contracts are not standardized and may not be sufficiently reliable to meet County’s long- term
needs.
3. Not all sections of County staff have the same familiarity and expertise in managing contracts.
This could cause inconsistency in contract management throughout the County. In addition,
expertise and best practices developed within certain County departments are not shared with
other departments.
4. The Grand Jury did not identify any standard procedures for review of contracts after their
terms had ended. A review of this type would verify whether all provisions were met, if any
action against the contractor is required, and whether any changes need to made to contract
management standard procedures.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 4- 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. All County departments that issue contracts should develop standard contract management
operating procedures. These procedures should cover all aspects of contract management and
clearly define tasks and responsibilities for each step in the contracting process. ( Finding # 1)
2. Any automated tracking systems used for contract management should be created using robust,
high- reliability database programming standards. Systems should be fully documented and
data should be protected from loss or corruption. ( Finding # 2)
3. County offices that do not issue contracts on a regular basis should work through other
departments that are more familiar with contract management procedures sharing established
best practices. ( Finding # 3)
4. When any contract term ends, the issuing office should review the contract to evaluate its
effectiveness. ( Finding # 4)
REQUIRED RESPONSES
1. San Luis Obispo County Administrator. ( all recommendations)
2. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. ( all recommendations)
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 5- 1
5. ELDER AND DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE
INTRODUCTION
As a large number of the general population of the County of San Luis Obispo ages, many elderly and
dependent adults can become vulnerable to various forms of abuse and neglect. An elder is defined as
any person 65 years of age or older. A dependent adult is any person between the ages of 18 and 64
who has physical or mental limitations that restrict their ability to engage in normal activity or to
protect their rights as citizens. They may have physical, mental or developmental disabilities or these
abilities have diminished with age. It also includes any person between the ages of 18 and 64 who has
been admitted to a 24 hour care facility because they are unable to care for themselves or have been
determined to pose a danger to themselves or others.
To effectively serve the needs of this group, a task force was organized by the District Attorney’s
Office along with various countywide agencies to coordinate elder assistance programs of government
and community service care providers.
PURPOSE
This Grand Jury report is meant to shine a light into the dim and shadowy lives of aged people who
suffer from dementia and live a confused and fearful existence. In 2006, The Task Force on Crimes
Against Elderly and Dependent Adults published “ Response to Incidents Involving Elderly &
Dependent Adults, A Protocol for First Responders and Support Agencies,” in San Luis Obispo
County. This document details how to recognize abuse and neglect, what can be done about it, as well
as where to go if there is suspicion of elder abuse.
2006- 2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
Final Report: Page: 5- 2
METHOD
As part of their